THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 

v-6\00-\0& 


BULLETINS 


of  the 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 
of  the 

NOT  MEXICO  COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE 
AND  MECHANIC  ARTS 


BULLETINS 

100-106 


1916-17 


STATE  COLLEGE,  N.  M 


CONTENTS 


100- Winter  protection  of  the  vinifera 

grape  by  Fabian  Garcia  and  J.  W. 

Rigney 

101- Feeding  range  steers  by  Luther  Foster 

and  H.  H.  Simpson 

102- Grasshopper  control  by  D.  E.  Merrill 

103- The  utilization  of  feed  by  range  steers 

of  different  ages.  II, Alfalfa  hay  and 
milo  maize  meal, by  F.  W.  Christensen 
and  others 

104- Dry  farming  in  eastern  New  Mexico  by  J.E, 

Mundell  and  Herbert  G,  Smith 

105- New  Mexico  Beans  by  Fabian  Garcia 

106- The  bean  beetle  by  D.  E.  Merrill 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/winterprotection1001garc 


O’  I Clo.&ju*— 

'9\\* 

BULLETIN  NO.  IOO 

JANUARY.  1916 

New  Mexico  College  of  Agriculture 
And  Mechanic  Arts 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 
STATE  COLLEGE,  N.  M. 


Covering  the  Vines  After  Plowing 

Winter  Protection  of  the  Vinifera 
Grape 


By  Fabian  Garcia  and  J.  W.  Rigney 


RIO  GRANDE  PUBLISHING  CO 
LAS  CRLCtS,  N.  M . 

1916 


New  Mexico  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


BOARD  OF  CONTROL. 


Board  of  Regents  of  the  College. 

J.  H.  PAXTON,  President,  Las  Cruces,  N.  M. 

P.  F.  McCANNA,  Secretary  and  Treasurer,  Albuquerque,  N.  M. 

C.  W.  GERBER,  Las  Cruces,  N.  M. 

R.  R.  LARKIN,  East  Las  Vegas,  N.  M. 

J.  A.  MAHONEY,  Deming,  N.  M. 


Advisory  Members. 

KON.  W.  C.  MCDONALD,  Governor  of  New  Mexico,  Santa  Fe,  N.  M. 
HON.  A.  N.  WHITE,  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction, 
Santa  Fe,  N.  M. 


STATION  STAFF. 


GEORGE  E.  LADD,  Ph.  D 

FABIAN  GARCIA,  M.  S.  A.... 
LUTHER  FOSTER,  M.  S.  A... 

F.  L.  BIXBY,  B.  S 

F.  W.  CHRISTENSEN,  M.  S. 

D.  E.  MERRILL,  M.  S 

L.  A.  HIGLEY,  Ph.  D 

R.  L.  STEWART,  M.  S.  A 

D.  W.  A.  BLOODGOOD,  B.  S. . 

JOSE  QUINTERO,  B.  S 

J.  R.  MEEKS,  B.  S.  A 

E.  H.  DIVELBISS,  B.  S.  A.... 

J.  G.  HAMILTON,  B.  S.  A 

E.  J.  MAYNARD,  B.  S.  A 


President  of  the  College 
...... .Director  and  Horticulturist 

Animal  Husbandman 

Irrigation  Engineer 

Nutrition  Chemist 

Biologist 

...... ... . ...  .Chemist 

Agronomist 

Assistant  Irrigation  Engineer 

.Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Animal  Husbandman 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

...Assistant  Animal  Husbandman 


A.  B.  FITE,  B.  S.  A... 


.Assistant  Horticulturist 


J T.  BARLOW,  B.  S.  A..... 

F.  C.  WERKENTHIN,  M.  A 

FLOY  E.  FRENCH 

R.  V.  WARE 

C.  P.  WILSON,  M.  S 

ARETUS  H.  BRADLEY 


.Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  Biologist 

Librarian 

Registrar 

Editor 

.Station  Stenographer 


G.^O.1 

n*hs&- 

yx&  \00  -l  o & 

Winter  Protection  of  the  Vinifera* 
Grape 

INTRODUCTION. 

The  results  of  the  first  experiments  with  European  grapes 
are  given  in  Station  Bulletin  No.  58.  The  discussions  deal 
mostly  with  the  question  of  propagation,  cultivation  and  va- 
rieties, and  slight  mention  is  made  of  the  resistability  of  the 
European  grape  to  the  winter  temperatures. 

The  bulletin  also  makes  some  reference  to  the  early  his- 
tory of  grape  growing  in  the  Rio  Grande  Valley  and  it  shows 
that  varieties  of  the  European  grape,  principally  the  old  Mis- 
sion or  El  Paso  grape,  were  grown  in  parts  of  the  Rio  Grande 
Valley  for  many  years  before  New  Mexico  became  part  of  the 
United  States. 

It  has  been  ascertained  that  the  range  of  adaptability  of 
the  European  grape,  as  far  as  the  winter  temperature  is  con- 
cerned, is  not  as  great  as  that  of  the  native  grapes.  In  other 
words,  the  European  grapes  are  not  as  hardy  to  cold  as  the 
native  varieties,  such  as  the  Concord,  Delaware,  etc.  For  that 
reason  the  best  European  grape  growing  districts  of  the  State 
may  be  found  in  the  warmer  and  lower  agricultural  districts. 
On  the  other  hand,  wherever  the  European  grape  will  grow  it 
produces  better  and  larger  crops  and  is  at  the  present  time  the 
commercial  grape  for  New  Mexico. 

The  early  Mexican  farmers,  who  were  the  first  grape 
growers  in  New  Mexico,  ascertained,  through  experience  most- 
ly, that  it  was  good  practice  to  protect  their  vines  during  the 
winter.  Later  vineyardists  doubted  the  necessity  of  this  practice 


•The  Vinifera  grape  is  the  European  or  so-called  “California”  gra.pe 


4 WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 

and  discontinued  the  use  of  it,  with  more  or  less  unsatisfactory 
results.  In  view  o-f  this  and  the  lack  of  definite  knowledge  on 
the  subject,  the  Experiment  Station  planned  an  experiment  to 
ascertain,  among  other  things,  the  effect  of  winter  protection 
upon  the  vines  and  yield. 

PLAN. 

In  order  to  carry  out  this  experiment,  a small  vineyard 
was  planted  between  the  14th  and  the  20th  of  March,  1906,  on 
the  new  horticultural  farm  in  a very  sandy  soil.  In  this  vine- 
yard 400  Flame  Tokay,  40*3  Black  Cornichon,  300  Emperor, 
730  Muscat  of  Alexandria,  a^d  600  Mission  cuttings  were 
planted.  All  of  the  plants  of  the  Flame  Tokay,  Black  Corni- 
chon and  Emperor  were  rooted  cuttings  obtained  from  Cali- 
fornia. The  Mission  and  Muscat  of  Alexandria  were  unrooted 
cuttings  obtained  from  local  vineyards.  A very  good  stand 
was  secured.  The  Mission  and  Muscat  of  Alexandria  cuttings 
rooted  remarkably  well  and  the  vines  made  almost  as  good 
growth  the  first  year  as  the  rooted  cuttings.  In  starting  this 
vineyard  some  of  the  Mission  and  Muscat  cuttings  were  taken 
in  the  fall  and  heeled-in  during  the  winter.  These  rooted 
somewhat  better  than  those  taken  in  the  spring. 

All  of  the  cuttings  were  planted  in  the  field  in  squares 
eight  feet  apart  and  immediately  irrigated.  The  sandy  soil  in 
which  they  were  planted  held  the  moisture  well,  and  therefore 
required  little  irrigation.  As  a matter  of  fact,  the  irrigation 
was  stopped  about  the  last  of  July  the  first  season.  From  that 
time  on  the  vineyard  was  simply  surface-cultivated.  The  small 
vines  were  banked  late  in  the  winter. 

The  pruning  in  the  spring  of  1907  was  done  the  first  week 
in  April  and  by  the  21st  of  the  month  a growth  of  from  six  to 
ten  inches  had  been  made  by  some  of  the  vines.  All  of  this 
growth  was  killed  on  the  21st  of  April  by  a late  frost.  The 
killing  back  of  this  new  growth  caused  the  plants  to  start  from 
the  base,  producing  a number  of  sprouts  during  the  summer 
which  had  to  be  removed,  leaving  one  or  two  to  form  the 
stump. 


WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 


5 


The  growth  made  during  the  summer  of  1907  was  re- 
markably large.  The  shoots  kept  on  growing  until  late  in  the 
fall,  when  the  first  frost  occurred.  The  vines  were  banked  up 
early  in  the  fall  of  1907.  The  pruning  was  done  from  the 
first  to  the  sixth  of  April,  1908,  two  weeks  after  the  uncover- 
ing  of  the  vines.  Immediately  after  pruning,  the  vines  were 
tied  to  stakes  which  were  driven  by  the  side  of  the  plant. 
The  stakes  used  for  this  purpose  were  made  of  material  not 
more  than  an  inch  to  two  inches  in  diameter  and  from  one  to 
two  feet  in  length.  The  object  of  this  operation  was  to 
strengthen  the  stump  so  that  it  would  grow  up  straight.  Most 
of  the  Mission,  Muscat  of  Alexandria,  Flame  Tokay  and  Black 
Cornichon  set  a fair  crop  in  1908.  The  Emperor  did  not  pro- 
duce any  fruit. 


Figure  1.  Tying  the  canes  up  in  the  fall.  First  operation. 


The  vine  growth  during  1908  was  very  rank  and  due  to  a 
number  of  vegetables  being  planted  in  the  vineyard  it  was  nec- 
essary to  keep  irrigating  until  late  in  the  fall.  This  late  irriga- 
tion undoubtedly  kept  the  vines  growing  too  late  and  prevented 
the  canes  from  properly  maturing  before  the  freezing  weather 
started.  In  December,  1908,  quite  a drop  in  temperature  oc= 


6 WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 

curred  and  the  more  succulent  and  tender  canes  were  materially 
injured.  The  vines  were  not  protected  during  the  winter  of 
1908-’09.  In  the  spring  when  the  vines  were  pruned,  April  1 to 
4,  it  was  observed  that  about  ninety  per  cent  of  the  canes  were 
dead.  On  most  of  the  injured  vines  the  main  stump  was  killed 
back  to  the  ground.  The  grape  vines,  having  the  main  stump 
killed,  again  sprouted  from  the  base  in  the  spring  of  1909. 
This  made  it  necessary  during  the  summer  to  remove  most  of 
the  sprouts  and  start  a new  stump.  The  canes  produced  from 
such  buds  are  generally  classed  as  renewal  canes  which  do  not, 
as  a rule,  bear  fruit  the  current  season.  On  account  of  such  a 
large  percentage  of  renewals  the  grape  crop  was  very  small 
in  1909. 

In  the  fall  and  early  winter  of  1909  part  of  the  vineyard 
was  pruned.  The  vines  were  covered  from  the  15th  to  the 
22nd  of  November.  In  the  fall  or  winter  pruning  of  the  vines 
the  canes  were  cut  back  to  about  six  buds,  leaving  from  six-  to 
eight-inch  stubs.  In  the  spring  these  stubs  were  again  cut  back 
to  two  or  three  buds,  the  usual  number  of  buds  to  be  left  after 
pruning.  In  the  spring  of  1910  after  the  pruning  was  done 
no  material  difference  could  be  seen  between  the  winter  and 
spring  pruned  vines.  Since  there  seemed  to  be  no  material  ad- 
vantage in  the  winter  pruning  the  practice  was  not  continued. 
The  vines  were  uncovered  March  15  to  20  and  pruned  from 
the  1st  to  the  5th  of  April. 

On  April  17,  1910,  a frost  injured  some  of  the  young 
sprouts  which  had  started  to  grow  and  this  reduced  the  grape 
crop  during  that  year.  During  the  ripening  season  the  honey 
bees  did  a great  deal  of  damage  to  the  berries,  by  sucking  all 
of  the  grape  juice  out  and  leaving  nothing  but  the  hulls. 


WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE.  % 

Experiments. 

In  the  fall  of  1910  the  vineyard  was  divided  into  nine 
plats,  in  order  to  test  different  ways  of  winter  protection  and 
to  get  more  reliable  data  on  the  effect  of  winter  irrigation 
with  no  protection;  irrigation  and  covering  the  vines  with 
moist  soil;  covering  the  vines  with  dry  soil  and  immediately 
irrigating  them ; covering  the  vines  with  dry  soil  and  not  irri- 
gating them  ; no  protection  and  no  irrigation  ; and  also  to  study 
the  effect  of  the  early  and  late  treatment  of  the  vines 


s 


WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 


atm™* 

[Tfis^Turr 

cor  fife  Hon 

EEIPEROR 

rrw 

TREATED  EARLY 

O * 

o 2 - 

* 

* 

71  ^ ~ 
n b S 
<3  J 

uimtiii'm 

it  t ; t : ;;;;::  I 

♦ 4 4 4-  ♦ 4-  4 

t 

mu 

•,  /. ! 

t 

s 

H 

rn 

H 

> 

3 

H 

“-1 

> 

'TJ 

rn 

LH 

5 

«b 

I 

5 

3j4 

= 

pi  Ij  5 

5j 

>:l;:i;:::::: 

D^+|‘4**4**** 

it : t i : t tt  it  1 t 

I :\i  ii  i 

* 

::::; 

; ; ; t 

* 

mu 

a o 

rn  m 
ti  fci 

if  *-■»*♦♦-»■►  + *+  ■• 

u ' * * t it t i 1 l 1 
>♦♦♦*+++**♦«■ 
~+««<t4t++**  + + 
^ 4 , f * f + + ♦ ■♦  * + 

* ; :.; ; ; ; 

l 

tttll 

:::: 

t 

TJ 

H 

S 4 

5 5 J 

at  1 1 1 1 t t l I t * 
d-  * * * * 4 + * 4 * 4 4 

rtff  *M4*M*4 

^<~<~<~*TTT-TTT?T 

-*• 

::::: 

;!;: 

* 

ti  * l * 

CHECK 

3 1' 
j 

K 3 j 
b g 

Df  t > t <■  » t ♦.**♦  + 

fit  t ♦ t t tit  l l l t 

: : : : : : : 

; 

: : : : 

; 

: : : ; : 

u, 

TREATED  LATE 

8 5 - 

^2  3 

»*2S 

r*i  ^ 5 
b 8 ~ 

o*  * T ********  ♦ 

; 

::::: 

♦ t ♦ + 

; 

: : : : : 

J 

8 5 ' 

t^Pi  c 

s>  5 

O'  * . 1 t r t + I ♦ I . 

*:::  Hi ;;::::' 

: ; : ; ; : ; 

; 

: ; ; : : 

:: :: 

; 

: : : : : 

55  8 

gis 
5 5 

0'  * * * * 4 4-  f ♦ * * * 

:::::: : 

: 

iitt 

* 

♦ 4-  | f ♦ 

5 Q 

2*8 

ciom 

3 K 

b b 

|4,  ri.4.Z*  + r + *** 

g*  ,♦♦******♦* 

* * **z  ****** 
nimzz  mt  it 

+ ♦ 4 -.  » 4 . 

1 1 z + * + 1 

* 

: : : ; ; 

nit 

1 

* * * * ; 

Figure  2.  Plan  of  the  plata. 


WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 


Plats  1 and  6 were  irrigated  and  not  covered.  Plats  2 and 
7 were  irrigated  first,  plowed  and  covered  just  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible after  the  irrigation;  usually,  on  the  sandy  soil  in  which 
the  vineyard  grew,  from  three  to  four  days  after  irrigation. 
Plats  3 and  8 were  covered  with  dry  soil  and  immediately  irri- 
gated. Plats  4 and  9 were  covered  with  dry  soil  but  not  irri- 
gated. Plat  5 was  not  treated  at  all.  Plats  1,  2,  3 and  4 were 
in  the  series  treated  early  in  the  season,  usually  from  the  1st 
to  the  15th  of  November.  Plats  6,  7,  8 and  9 were  in  the  series 
treated  about  two  weeks  later,  usually  from  the  20th  to  the  27th 
of  November. 

In  1910,  plats  1,  2,  3 and  4 were  treated  during  the  first 
week  in  November  according  to  the  outline  in  the  plan.  Plat  1 
was  irrigated  but  not  covered;  plat  2 irrigated  and  covered; 
plat  3 covered  and  irrigated ; plat  4 covered  and  not  irrigated. 
About  two  weeks  later,  from  the  18th  to  the  24th  of  November, 
the  second  series  of  plats  was  treated.  Plat  6 was  irrigated 
but  not  covered;  plat  7 irrigated  and  covered;  plat  8 covered 
and  irrigated;  plat  9 covered,  not  irrigated. 

While  the  winter  of  1910-T1  was  very  cold,  the  canes  on 
the  protected  vines  were  not  killed.  The  uncovered  vines,  how- 
ever, were  badly  winter  killed.  The  canes  on  plats  1 and  6 
were  badly  injured,  indicating  that  the  simple  irrigating  of  the 
vines  was  not  enough  protection  to  prevent  the  canes  from 
being  winter  killed.  In  the  spring  when  the  vines  were  uncov- 
ered,  it  was  found  that  the  canes  on  the  vines  in  plats  2,  3,  7 
and  8 were  fresher  and  plumper  and  the  buds  at  the  base  of  the 
canes  were  somewhat  farther  advanced  than  on  the  other  plats. 
Soon  after  pruning,  the  first  week  in  April,  the  vines  in  plats 
2,  3,  7 and  8 started  growing  and  they  made  a faster  growth 
than  the  canes  on  the  other  plats.  In  1911  there  was  a heavy 
crop  of  fruit  set  on  the  protected  vines,  but  3 very  light  one 
on  the  unprotected  ones. 

In  the  fall  of  1911,  plats  1 and  2 were  irrigated  October 
27  and  plowed  on  the  30th.  Plats  2,  3,  and  4 were  covered  ac- 


10  WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VTNIFERA  GRAPE. 

cording  to  the  plan  from  the  first  to  the  eighth  of  November. 
Plats  6 and  7 were  irrigated  November  16th  and  plowed  on 
the  20th.  Plats  7,  8 and  9 were  covered  from  the  20th  to  the 
25th  of  November.  The  winter  of  1911-T2  was  practically 
the  same  as  the  previous  one  and  the  uncovered  vines  were 
badly  injured  while  the  protected  ones  were  not  hurt.  From 
the  8th  to  the  15th  of  March,  1912,  the  vines  were  uncovered. 
On  May  4 a light  frost  did  considerable  damage  to  the  tender 
growth  and  fruit  buds  which  had  already  started  to  develop. 
This  reduced  the  crop  somewhat  in  1912. 


Figure  3.  Irrigating  before  plowing.  Second  operation. 


The  treatment  for  the  winter  of  1912-T3  was  the  same 
as  that  for  previous  years.  From  October  26th  to  the  29th  the 
grape  canes  were  tied.  Plats  1 and  2 were  irrigated  on  Octo- 
ber 28,  and  the  middles  were  plowed  November  2,  1912.  Plats 
2.  3 and  4 were  covered  during  the  3d  to  the  6th  of  November. 
Plats  6 and  7 were  irrigated  November  19,  and  plowed  on  the 
23d.  Plats  7,  8 and  9 were  covered  from  the  24th  to  the  26th 
of  November,  1912. 

The  winter  of  1912-T3  was  exceedingly  cold.  On  Jan- 
uary 8 the  thermometer  at  the  plats  recorded  a temperature  of 


WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE  11 

10  degrees  below  zero.  This  w^s  unusually  cold  and  is  the 
lowest  temperature  that  has  beenjrecorded  at  the  Experiment 
Station  since  meteorological  records  have  been  kept  While 
the  winter  was  unusually  cold  the  beginning  of  spring  was  not 
much  later  than  usual.  On  February  26  the  vines  were  plowed 
and  on  March  3,  4 and  5 the  dirt  tljat  had  been  left  around  the 
vines  was  removed.  On  April  1,‘ twenty-six  days  after  the 
vines  were  uncovered,  the  pruning  >vas  started.  On  the  whole 
the  vines  were  a few  days  later  in  starting  to  grow  in  1913 
than  during  the  previous  year  and  while  there  were  a number 
of  nights  of  freezing  weather  the  temperature  did  not  drop 
low  enough  to  damage  the  crop,  except  a 27-degree  tempera- 
ture on  April  24.  This  temperature  reduced  the  fruit  buds, 
but  still  quite  a heavy  crop  of  fruit  :was  set  on  the  covered 
vines.  On  June  7 a hail  storm  did  .some  injury  and  further 
reduced  the  crop.  The  canes  of  the  unprotected  vines  were 
practically  all  winter  killed  except  a few  on  the  Muscat  of 
Alexandria  in  plat  5.  The  following  table  will  give  an  idea 
of  the  amount  of  injury  done  in  1912-1913  to  the  treated  and 
untreated  vines: 


12 


WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 


Plat  No. 

os  cn  cn  4*.  oo  os  oo 

No.  of  Vines 

ff  g 

tf»-Cn  00 

(OOO^OOKOO-l 

Winter  Injured 

O 

o 

I 8 

a 

p-  £ 

35  Cn  Cn  00  -3  05 

Sound 

o 

S'  a 

■b'bSHOOSKCnwO 

0 

cncncn4».4*-cncncn<3s 

CnCOCOCOU*OOrf».'X>i— 

No.  of  Vines 

New  M< 

Mission 

^ ^ a 

OMOtO^OMOh-* 

Winter  Injured 

o 

o 

3 

pj 

Sound 

o 

X 

WMWOOMwSo 

o 

cococowtococococn 

cnu)Oi<x>oococccoH* 

No.  of  Vine* 

W 

§ 

** 

o 

o 

►* 

to  to  cn 

OMOOOOOMCOK 

Winter  Injured 

O 

o 

3 

£: 

3 

EJ 

o* 

WMW  CO  CO  CO 

Cn— ‘0500CO-30® 

Sound 

o 

3 

3* 

o 

3 

lcotoiocococococo.&. 

cno-»i<!.05-3cococc 

No.  of  Vines 

3 

w 1 

CO  to  4>. 

WH^OJOtONM 

Winter  Injured 

O 

o 

ce 

o 

3 

CO  t— 1 to  to  CO  CO 

Sound 

d 

-*  -3  05  © © -4  M ® 

3 

toeocococococococo 

No.  of  \ ines 

x>  ® to  to  cn  -3  tc  cnos 

1 

i->  to  to  CO 

Winter  Injured 

O 

H 

ooo®cocncni-‘H‘05 

3 

0. 

o 

X 

& 

£ 

<< 

— * to  CO  CO  CO  CO 

Sound 

o 

jx>COCO®®COM*.Oj 

3 

Amount  of  Injury  Done  to  the  Vines  During  the  Winter  of  1912-1913. 


WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE 


n 


The  above  table  will  give  a good  idea  of  the  amount  of 
injury  done  to  the  treated  and  untreated  vines  during  the  win- 
ter of  1912-T3.  Plat  1 shows  that  all  the  vines  of  all  the  va- 
rieties were  winter  injured.  Plat  2 shows  that  all  the  vines 
of  the  Muscat  of  Alexandria  and  the  New  Mexico  Mission 
were  sound ; that  thirty  out  of  the  thirty-three  Black  Cornichon 
were  sound;  thirty-one  out  of  the  thirty-three  Emperor  were 
sound ; and  that  thirty-four  out  of  the  thirty-five  Flame  Tokay 
were  sound.  Plat  3 shows  that  all  of  the  Muscat  of  Alexandria 
were  sound,  while  the  New  Mexico  Mission,  Black  Cornichon, 
Emperor  and  Flame  Tokay  had  one,  two,  two  and  one  vines  in- 
jured, respectively.  Plat  4 shows:  one  vine  injured  in  the  Mus- 
cat of  Alexandria;  none  in  the  New  Mexico  Mission,  Black 
Cornichon  and  Emperor,  and  five  in  the  Flame  Tokay.  In  plat 
5,  six  of  the  Muscat  of  Alexandria  were  sound.  All  the  vines 
of  the  other  varieties  were  injured.  In  plat  6 all  the  vines 
of  all  the  varieties  were  injured.  In  plat  7 all  the  vines  were 
sound  except  one  in  the  Emperor  block.  Plat  8 shows  that  all 
the  Muscat  of  Alexandria  were  sound;  and  that  one  each  of 
the  New  Mexico  Mission  and  Black  Cornichon;  three  in  the 
Emperor  and  eight  in  the  Flame  Tokay  were  injured.  Plat  9 
had  two  of  the  Muscat  of  Alexandria,  no  New  Mexico  Mission 
and  Black  Cornichon,  four  Emperor  and  ten  Flame  Tokay,  in- 
jured. 

From  these  figures  it  seems  that  the  Emperor  and  the 
Flame  Tokay  were  the  more  susceptible  to  winter  injury,  as 
we  find  more  injured  vines  in  these  two  blocks  even  on  the  pro- 
tected plats.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Muscat  of  Alexandria  is 
probably  the  hardiest,  as  aside  from  the  larger  number  of  canes 
being  uninjured  in  plats  1 and  6 there  were  six  vines  not  hurt 
in  plat  5. 

The  following  table  gives  the  yields  of  the  treated  and  un 
treated  plats  for  1913" 


14 


WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 


Plat  No. 

Winter  Treatment 

Irrigated,  not  covered | 

Irrigated  and  covered j 

Covered  and  irrigated 

Covered,  not  irrigated 

Check  1 

Irrigated,  not  covered ...1 

Irrigated  and  covered 

Covered  and  irrigated 1 

How  Treated 

Early  I 
Early 
Early 
Early 

Later 

Later 

Later 

When  Treated 

No.  of  Vines  in  Plat 

Muscat  of  Alexandria 

130 

662 

1115 

201 

517 

555 

395 

Actual  Yield 
per  Plat,  lbs. 

1.49 

9.57 

13.57 

3.09 

1.1 

11.1 

7.6 

Average  Yield 
per  Vine,  lbs. 

1013 

6508 

9227 

2101 

748 

7548 

5168 

Computed  Yield 

per  Acre  (680  vines),  lbs. 

No.  of  Vines  in  Plat 

New  Mexico  Mission 

<71  Oi  <71  O' 

CCWMNCOiC 

Actual  Yield 
per  Plat,  lbs. 

.0 

8.59 

12.49 

8.63 

0.5 

.81 

12.0 

12.0 

Average  Yield 
per  Vine,  lbs. 

0 

584i 

8493 

5868 

340 

551 

8160 

8160 

Computed  Yield 

per  Acre  (680  vines),  lbs. 

oc  tc  to  OC  tC  <X>  tc  -J 

No.  of  Vines  in  Plat 

Black  Cornichon 

0 

211 

222 

90 

14 

0 

166 

67 

Actual  Yield 
per  Plat,  lbs. 

ONCTO! 

wLecnbcbibie 

X <X>  <X  -~J 

Average  Yield 
per  Vine,  lbs. 

.-•eo 

v.vr  « x or  >u 

titi  H-*  <T  <St 

OI(OOOM«*JO 

Computed  Yield 

per  Acre  (680  vines),  lbs. 

Yield  for  1913. 


WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 


IS 


It  is  interesting  to  note  from  the  above  table  that  the 
three  varieties  of  grapes  on  the  uncovered  plats  had  a small 
crop,  particularly  on  the  Mission  and  Black  Cornichon.  In  the 
case  of  the  Black  Cornichon,  plats  1 and  6 did  not  produce  any 
crop  as  all  the  vines  were  winter  killed,  while  in  plat  5 the  aver- 
age yield  per  vine  was  one-half  pound.  The  Mission  vines  in 
plat  1 were  all  winter  killed,  while  a few  canes  on  plats  5 and 

6 were  uninjured  and  the  average  yield  per  vine  was  .5  and  .81 
pound,  respectively.  The  Muscat  of  Alexandria  vines  appar- 
ently withstood  the  winter  much  better,  as  the  average  yield 
per  vine  in  plats  1,  5 and  6 was  1.49,  3.09  and  1.1  pounds,  re- 
spectively. Quite  a number  of  vines  in  plat  5 were  not  hurt. 
In  a general  way  it  will  be  seen  that  the  irrigation  of  plats  1 
and  6 did  not  materially  help  in  preventing  the  vines  from  be- 
ing winter  killed,  as  the  vines  on  those  irrigated  and  uncovered 
plats  did  not  resist  the  cold  any  more  than  the  vines  on  check 
plat  5. 

It  will  also  be  noted  that  there  was  no  material  difference 
in  the  yield  from  the  vines  covered  after  irrigation,  those 
covered  before  irrigation  and  the  ones  covered  and  not  irri- 
gated. From  these  results  there  was  not  enough  difference  in 
yields  in  plats  2,  3 and  4 to  draw  definite  conclusions  as  to 
which  treatment  is  the  best.  In  the  case  of  the  Muscat  of  Alex- 
andria, plat  4 produced  more  per  vine  than  plats  2,  7 and  8.  In 
the  case  of  the  Mission,  plat  3 produced  slightly  more  than  any 
of  the  other  plats.  In  case  of  the  Black  Cornichon  plats  2 and 

7 in  the  two  series  had  slightly  the  lead  of  the  other  plats.  The 
yield  of  plat  9 was  not  recorded.  The  Emperor  and  Flame 
Tokay  plats  were  discontinued. 

Apparently  there  is  no  material  advantage  gained  by  the 
irrigation  over  the  dry  treated  plats.  This  question  is  one  of 
convenience  at  the  time  when  the  work  is  being  done.  In  cases 
where  the  vineyard  is  planted  in  very  sandy  soil  the  work  of 
banking  up  the  vines  can  be  done  easier  bv  first'  irrigating  the 
land. 

On  October  27  to  29,  1913,  the  grape  canes  were  tied. 


16  WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE 

Plats  1 and  2 were  irrigated  October  30.  On  the  3d  of  No- 
vember the  middles  between  the  vines  were  plowed.  From  the 
3d  of  November  to  the  6th,  plats  2,  3 and  4 were  covered.  On 
November  19  plats  6 and  7 were  irrigated  and  on  the  23d  the 
middles  were  plowed.  From  the  23d  to  the  27th  of  November 
plats  7,  8 and  9 were  covered.  The  winter  of  1913-T4  was 


Figure  4.  Plowing  dirt  towards  vines  before  banking.  Third 
operation. 

comparatively  mild  and  the  lowest  temperature  recorded  at  the 
plats  was  9 1-2  degrees  Fahrenheit  on  January  30,  1914 
Though  the  winter  was  mild  most  of  the  canes  on  the  unpro- 
tected vines  of  all  the  varieties  were  badly  winter  killed  while 
those  of  the  protected  vines  were  not  injured  at  all.  At  the 
time  of  uncovering  the  vines,  it  was  observed  that  all  of  the 
part  of  the  canes  that  was  covered  was  plumper  and  seemed  to 
contain  more  sap.  Slight  injury  was  done  to  the  shoots  by 
the  frost  of  April  24.  On  March  1,  1914,  the  dirt  was  plowed 
away  from  the  vines.  Starting  on  the  10th  the  vines  were  un- 
covered. From  April  1 to  the  6th  the  pruning  of  the  vines  was 
done.  On  June  1 a hail  storm  did  considerable  damage  to  the 
crop.  It  was  estimated  that  the  crop  was  reduced  by  one-fifth 
to  one-fourth.  The  winter  treated  vines,  however,  gave  the 
largest  yield,  as  is  shown  by  the  following  table : 


Yield  for  1914. 


WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 


17 


•s 

5 

•sqi  ‘(sauiA  089)  aaoy  aad 

PiaiA  pajndtnoo 

•sqi  ‘ouia  -tad 
piafA  aSeaaAy 

imnm 

•sqi  ‘jBid  Jad 

Pi91A  lenjoy 

JBU  Ut  S9UIA  JO  ‘°N 

New  Mexico  Mission 

•sqi  ‘(sauiA  089)  aioy  jad 
nl9Ll  painduioo 

SS35SSSS3 

“SSissggg 

•sqi  ‘auiA  -tad 

Pia.A  aSPJaAy 

1 41 

22.17 

17.71 

15.41 

1.53 

1 63 

19.36 

17.88 

12.27 

•sqi  ‘jBid  -tad 

P[9fA  lumpy 

s§Is**ISg 

JBld  ui  sautA  jo  -on; 

Muscat  of  Alexandria 

•sqi  ‘(sauiA  089)0 toy  jod 

PiatA  painduioo 

ipmpi 

•sqi  ‘autA  jad 

PIOfA  aSeaaAy 

sqi  ‘juid  -tad 

PiatA  pmpy 

108 
1520 
1088 
1029 
124 
103 
1024 
823 
7f  8 

^Bid  up  sauiA  jo  -on 

Winter  Treatment 

pa^uaaj.  uaqAY 

Hi  11 

How  Treated 

Irrigated,  not  covered 

Irrigated  and  covered 

Covered  and  irrigated 

Covered,  not  irrigated 

Check  

Irrigated,  not  covered 

Irrigated  and  covered 

Covered  and  irrigated  

Covered  not  irr-ieotod 

ON 

18  WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 

Again  it  is  seen  that  the  plats  1,  5 and  6 of  all  varieties 
gave  the  smallest  yields.  The  Muscat  of  Alexandria,  in  plats 
1,  5 and  6 averaged  4.5,  1.97  and  2.24  pounds  per  vine,  re- 
spectively ; while  in  the  early  treated  plats  2,  3 and  4 the  aver- 
age yield  per  vine  was  22.03,  14.51  and  12.7  pounds,  respect- 
ively. In  the  late  treated  plats,  7,  8 and  9,  the  yield  was  prac- 
tically the  same.  The  Mission  vines  in  plats  1,  5 and  6 aver- 
aged 1.41,  1.53  and  1.63  pounds,  respectively;  while  the  vines 
treated  both  early  and  late  in  plats  2,  3,  4,  7,  8 and  9 averaged 
22.17,  17.71,  15.41,  19.36,  17.88  and  12.27  pounds,  respective- 
ly. The  Black  Cornichon  variety  seemed  to  be  the  lightest 
yielder.  None  of  the  plats  corresponding  with  those  of  the 
Muscat  of  Alexandria  and  Mission  produced  nearly  the  same 
amount. 

The  uncovered  Black  Cornichon  vines  in  plats  1,  5 and  6 
averaged  .08,  .33  and  .24  pound,  respectively,  while  the  yield 
from  the  early  and  late  treated  vines  was  fairly  uniform  and 
much  larger,  varying  from  9.4  pounds  in  plat  8 to  6.19  pounds 
in  plat  9.  Plats  2 and  7,  irrigated  and  covered,  in  the  Muscat 
of  Alexandria  and  Mission  blocks,  gave  quite  a material  in- 
crease in  yield  over  plats  3,  8,  4 and  9,  covered  and  irrigated, 
and  covered  and  not  irrigated,  respectively.  Plats  3 and  8, 
covered  and  irrigated,  also  show  a larger  yield  per  vine  over 
plats  4 and  9.  In  this  case  there  is  a slight  indication  that  the 
irrigation  of  the  vines  had  some  slight  influence  on  the  yield. 
The  same  is  true,  in  a general  way,  with  the  Black  Cornichon 
with  the  single  exception  of  plat  3,  covered  and  irrigated, 
which  dropped  slightly  below  plat  4,  covered  and  not  irri- 
gated. On  the  whole,  taking  the  three  varieties,  the  irrigated 
and  covered  vines  produced  a larger  yield  than  those  covered 
and  irrigated  and  than  the  covered  and  not  irrigated  vines. 
The  two  or  three  weeks’  difference  in  time  of  treating  plats  2, 
3,  4,  7,  8 and  9 did  not  show  any  material  influence  on  the 
yield.  Apparently  the  covering  of  the  vines,  if  done  reasonably 
early,  'is  the  most  important  factor  in  the  practice  of  winter 
treatment. 


WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 


19 


Figure  5.  A covered  vine.  La,st  operation. 

From  October  15  to  20,  1914,  the  tying  of  the  grape  canes 
was  done.  Plats  1 and  2 were  irrigated  October  30.  On  No- 
vember 4 the  middles  were  plowed  and  from  the  5th  to  the  8th 
plats  2,  3 and  4 were  covered.  Plats  6 and  7 were  irrigated 
November  20  and  the  middles  were  plowed  on  the  24th.  From 
the  24th  to  the  29th  plats  7,  8 and  9 were  covered.  The  winter 
of  1914-T5  proved  to  be  very  mild.  The  coldest  temperature 
recorded  at  the  plats  was  ten  degrees  above  zero  on  December 
10,  1914.  Aside  from  the  winter  being  mild  it  was  quite  rainy. 


20  WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE, 

The  rainfall  for  November  and  December,  1914,  and  January 
and  February,  1915,  was  ,56,  4.0,  .86  and  .67  inches,  respect- 
ively. 

The  large  amount  of  moisture  during  the  winter  seems  to 
have  been  a favorable  factor  in  the  prevention  of  the  winter 
killing  of  the  grape  vines.  Even  on  the  unprotected  vines 
there  were  only  a few  of  the  canes  that  were  injured,  while 
those  on  the  protected  plats  were  full  of  sap  and  quite  plump 
at  the  time  of  pruning,  April  6,  1915.  On  February  23,  the 
dirt  was  plowed  away  from  the  vines..  On  March  10  to  13  the 
vines  were  uncovered.  From  April  6 to  the  10th  they  were 
pruned.  The  spring  was  very  favorable.  There  were  no  low 
temperatures  during  the  spring  and  a heavy  crop  was  set  on  all 
the  vines.  The  following  table  gives  the  yields  for  1915  : 


Yield  for  1915. 


WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 


Z1 


Black  Cornichon 

•sqi  ‘(sauiA  089)  Jad 

PRiA  pataduioo 

lilPill 

*sqi  ‘9UJA  **ad 
PR!A  93cj8a y 

•sqi  aad 

P.OLl  lenjo v 

S333S8828 

jc[j  ui  sauiA  jo  om 

New  Mexico  Mission 

sqi  ‘(sauiA  089)  ajoy  aad 

PR!  A pajnduioo 

«IP!1 

•sqi  ‘ouiA  Jad 

PR!  A oSuaaAV 

mm 

sqi  aad 

PR!A  limjov 

mmm 

JB|d  Ul  S8UIA  JO  -on 

Muscat  of  Alexandria 

sqi  ‘(S9UIA  089)  aaoy  aad 
PR1A  pajnduioo 

ilsifl 

sqi  ‘0UTA  aad 
PRtA  aSuaaAy 

8.48 

23.77 

26.76 

27.79 

HI 

?I:S 

16.69 

•sqi  'jBld  49d 
Pi9!A  i«moy 

sill^ps 

JBId  UJ  S9UJA  JO  -ON 

Winter  Treatment 

P9JB9JX  uaqAA 

Larly 

Eariy 

Early 

Early 

Later 

Later 

Later 

Later 

How  Treated 

Irrigated,  not  covered 

Irrigated  and  covered 

Covered  and  irrigated... 

Covered,  not  irrigated 

Check  

Irrigated,  not  covered..... 

Irrigated  and  covered 

Covered  and  irrigated.... 

Covered,  not  irrigated 

'ON 

HNM^W(Ot-OOC'. 

22  WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 

By  observing  the  table  it  will  be  noticed  that  even  the  un- 
protected plats  1,  5 and  6 produced  a fairly  good  crop.  This 
was  due  mostly  to  the  fact  that  the  vines  were  not  winter  in- 
jured and  the  new  sprouts  grew  from  buds  on  the  previous 
year’s  canes.  In  the  Muscat  of  Alexandria  block,  plats  1,  5 
and  6 averaged  8.48,  9.67  and  9.14  pounds  per  vine,  respect- 
ively. In  the  Mission  block  the  same  plats  averaged  11.82, 
5.74  and  4.93  pounds  per  vine,  respectively.  In  the  Black 
Cornichon,  the -same  plats  averaged  materially  less  per  vine, 
being  2.23,  1.36  and  2.14  pounds,  respectively.  Again  it  is 
noticed  that  the  vines  treated  early  in  the  season  did  not  aver- 
age, on  the  whole,  any  larger  yields  than  those  in  plats  7,  8 and 
9,  treated  later  in  the  season.  It  is  also  to  be  noticed  that  the 
irrigation  either  before  or  after  covering  the  vines  did  not 
have,  apparently,  any  material  influence  on  the  yield.  For  ex- 
ample, the  Muscat  of  Alexandria  block,  plat  4,  covered  and 
not  irrigated,  averaged  slightly  higher  per  vine  than  plats  2 
and  3 ; while  plat  7,  irrigated  and  covered,  averaged  practic- 
ally the  same  as  plat  4.  In  the  New  Mexico  Mission  block  the 
vines  in  plat  4,  covered  but  not  irrigated,  averaged  slightly 
more  than  those  in  plat  3,  covered  and  irrigated,  and  consider- 
ably more  than  those  in  plat  8,  but  less  than  the  vines  in  plats 
2 and  7,  irrigated  and  covered. 

This  table  again  shows  that  the  Black  Cornichon  is  not  as 
heavy  a yielder  as  either  the  Muscat  of  Alexandria  or  the  New 
Mexico  Mission.  The  maximum  average  per  vine  on  any  of 
the  Black  Cornichon  blocks  was  11.41  pounds  in  plat  7,  irri- 
gated and  covered ; the  maximum  yield,  per  vine,  of  the 
Muscat  of  Alexandria  was  27.79  pounds  in  plat  4,  covered  and 
not  irrigated,  while  the  New  Mexico  Mission  on  plat  7 aver- 
aged 29.13  pounds  per  vine. 

By  examining  the  table  it  is  noticed  that  the  Black  Corni- 
chon vines  in  plats  4 and  9,  covered  but  not  irrigated,  averaged 
slightly  higher  than  the  vines  on  plats  2 and  7,  and  on  3 and  8. 
From  these  results  it  appears  quite  clear  that  the  irrigation  be- 


WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 


23 


fore  covering  or  after  covering  does  not  necessarily  have  any 
material  influence  upon  the  yield,  as  long  as  the  vine  had  been 
properly  covered.  It  is  noticed  that  in  some  cases  the  vines 
covered  and  not  irrigated  averaged  higher  yields  than  the 
others. 


Figure  6.  Plowing  dirt  away  from  the  vines  in  spring. 


Attention  is  also  called  to  the  fact  that  the  covering  of  the 
vines  with  moist  soil  did  not  injure  the  canes,  nor  did  the  irri- 
gation of  the  vines  after  they  were  covered  injure  them.  A 
theory  has  prevailed  among  the  old  native  vineyardists  that  the 
covering  of  the  vines  with  moist  soil  or  irrigating  them  after 
covering  made  the  canes  more  susceptible  to  injury.  The  re- 
sults obtained  at  the  Station  did  not  substantiate  this  theory. 
From  the  farm  practice  point  of  view,  where  the  vineyard  is 
growing  on  a good  grape  soil  (sandy  or  sandy  loam)  it  will  be 
easier  to  plow  the  soil  and  cover  the  vines  if  the  ground  is  first 
irrigated.  As  a rule,  in  the  carrying  out  of  these  investigations 
the  soil  could  be  plowed  in  three  to  four  days  after  the  plats 
were  irrigated.  The  irrigation  of  the  plats  which  were  irri- 
gated after  being  covered  was  done  immediately  after  the 
vines  were  covered.  From  the  results  obtained  it  is  quite  plain- 
ly brought  out  that  the  irrigation  of  the  vines  when  not  cov- 


24  WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 

ered  did  not  reduce  the  percentage  of  injury  to  the  canes 
enough  to  justify  that  operation. 

COST. 

The  covering  of  the  grape  vines  is  considered  by  some 
vineyardists  too  expensive  to  be  practiced,  For  that  reason 
some  grape  growers  do  not  bank  up  the  vines  in  the  fall,  re- 
sulting oftentimes  in  the  canes  being  winter  killed  back  to  the 
old  stump.  In  banking  up  vineyards  there  are  from  two  to 
four  operations  necessary  in  the  work,  which  are  illustrated  by 
figures  1,  3,  4 and  5. 

First  Operation  : Just  as  soon  as  the  first  light  frost  occurs 
in  the  fall  it  is  a good  thing  to  go  over  the  vines,  gather  in 
the  canes  and  tie  them  either  with  one  of  the  cants  themselves 
or  with  some  twine  or  baling  wire.  (See  Fig,  1. ) This  opera- 
tion has  taken,  on  the  experimental  plats,  sixty-four  hours  to 
tie  up  1,072  grape  vines  six  to  seven  years  old.  The  actual 
cash  outlay  depends  on  how  much  is  paid  the  laborers.  At  the 
Station  it  has  cost  an  average  of  $6.50  or  at  the  rate  of  $4.08 
per  acre. 

While  the  vines  may  not  be  winter  killed  every  winter  it 
is  important  to  protect  them  every  fall,  for  the  reason  that  the 
vineyardist  will  never  be  able  to  tell  during  which  winter  the 
vines  will  be  injured.  The  covering  of  the  vines  is  like  insur- 
ance on  a house:  we  need  it  but  once.  So  it  is  with  the  vine- 
yard. The  vineyard  may  go  two  or  three  years  before  it  is  in- 
jured but  when  it  is  winter  killed  it  is  a great  loss  to  the  vine- 
yardist. Sometimes  the  vines  are  materially  injured  by  the  late 
spring  frosts.  The  spring  frosts  do  not  seem  to  hurt  the  old 
canes  but  they  do  kill  the  young  shoots.  If  the  spring  tempera- 
ture happens  to  be  severe  and  late  enough  to  kill  all  the  shoots 
which  have  sprouted  from  the  buds  after  pruning, the  plant  puts 
out  new  shoots  mostly  from  adventitious  buds  and  in  many 
cases  these  shoots  start  from  the  ground.  Any  injury  of  this 
kind  causes  a great  deal  of  loss  and  expense  to  the  grape 


WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 


25 


grower.  If  the  vines  are  winter  killed  and  if  they  are  mater- 
ially injured  by  the  spring  frosts,  then  the  grape  grower  has, 
in  many  cases,  to  start  a new  central  stem  or  stump  on  which  to 
build  up  the  scaffold  of  the  vine. 

The  second  operation  is  cither  the  irrigating  or  the  plow- 
ing of  the  soil  just  before  the  banking  up  of  the  plants.  This 
may  be  done  one.  two  or  three  weeks  after  the  tying  up  of  the 
canes.  It  depends  somewhat  upon  the  local  weather  conditions. 
As  a rule  at  the  Station  this  work  was  done  about  the  first 
week  in  November.  The  plowing  of  the  vineyard  may  be  done 
either  when  the  soil  is  dry  or  wet.  On  good  grape  soil,  which 
varies  from  sandy  loam  to  very  sandy,  it  is  preferable  to  irri- 
gate the  vineyard  a few  days  before  plowing.  (See  Fig.  3.) 
By  having  the  soil  in  a moist  condition  it  can  be  plowed  up  to 
the  vine  to  better  advantage  and  it  is  also  easier  to  handle  in 
banking  up  the  vines.  If  the  soil  happens  to  be  a heavy  adobe 
and  if  it  is  irrigated  it  must  be  done  quite  a while  before  plow- 
ing. If  it  is  not  irrigated  and  it  happens  to  be  very  dry  it  will 
break  up  in  a very  rough  condition  with  many  large  clods,  mak- 
ing it  very  hard  to  handle  in  banking  up  the  vines.  The  time 
required  to  plow  the  middles  one  way  in  the  vineyard  at  the 
Station  was,  as  a rule,  from  nine  to  ten  hours  (See  Fig.  4), 
costing  75c  to  $1.00  per  acre,  if  the  horse-labor  is  not  taken  into 
consideration. 

Last  Operation:  Just  as  soon  as  the  soil  is  plowed,  the 
banking  of  the  vines  is  started.  This  is  probably  the  most  tedi- 
ous and  most  expensive  operation  in  the  practice  of  winter  pro- 
tection. In  plowing  the  soil  the  vine  is  partially  banked  but 
since  the  mound  or  hill  of  earth  should  be  eight  to  twelve  inches 
above  the  old  stump  of  the  vine  it  is  necessary  to  finish  the 
banking  either  with  a hoe  or  a long  handled  shovel.  The  latter 
is  preferable,  though  many  of  the  native  laborers  are  very, 
handy  with  an  ordinary  hoe.  The  banking  of  the  vines  is 
simply  the  building  up  of  a conical  mound  of  earth  around  the 
grape  vine.  Its  height  depends  on  the  size  of  the  vine.  As  a 


2J  WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 

rule,  however,  eight  or  twelve  inches  of  the  new  canes  above 
the  old  stump  are  covered.  (See  Frontispiece.)  In  the  bank- 
ing of  the  1,072  vines  in  the  Statio.  experimental  vineyard,  the 
time  averaged  seventy-eight  hours  c ' work,  costing  from  $7.80 
to  $8.00,  or  at  the  rate  of  $5.00  per  acre. 

During  the  winter  there  is  nothing  to  be  done  to  the  vine- 
yard. The  results  from  these  experiments  indicate  that  it  is  a 
good  practice  to  start  the  uncovering  of  the  vines  probably  a 
month  before  they  are  pruned  in  the  spring.  It  appears  that 
if  the  vines  are  not  uncovered  early,  the  base-buds  of  the  canes 
begin  to  swell  and  are  liable  to  burst  earlier  than  the  buds  on 
the  canes  which  are  exposed  to  the  air.  It  is  not  desirable  to 
have  the  vineyard  start  growing  early  in  the  spring.  The 
longer  it  is  delayed  in  starting  to  grow  the  better.  For  this 
reason  it  is  believed  that  vineyards  should  be  uncovered  from 
three  to  five  weeks  before  they  are  pruned.  In  the  uncovering 
of  the  vines  the  work  may  be  done  easier  and  cheaper  by  plow- 
ing the  dirt  away  from  the  vines  first,  getting  as  close  to  the 
vines  as  possible  with  the  plow.  After  the  dirt  has  been  par- 
tially removed  from  the  vines  by  the  plow,  it  is  allowed  to 
stay  in  this  condition  for  a week  or  two.  At  the  end  of  this 
period  the  rest  of  the  dirt  is  removed  from  around  the  vines. 
If  it  is  desired,  an  acme  harrow  or  an  evener  may  be  run 
through  the  middles  to  level  the  soil.  In  a week  or  two  the 
pruning  follows. 

The  cost  of  plowing  away  the  dirt  is  no  more  than  that  of 
plowing  the  dirt  to  the  plants  in  the  fall.  The  cost  of  remov- 
ing the  dirt  from  the  vines  after  plowing  is  considerably  less 
than  the  finishing  up  of  the  mound  in  the  fall.  At  the  Station 
it  has  averaged  about  $2.50  per  acre. 

PROPAGATION. 

Vineyards  are  started  by  cuttings.  These  may  be  rooted 
or  not.  The  amateur,  however,  will  have  better  success  in 
starting  his  vineyard  with  rooted  cuttings.  Such  cuttings  may 


WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 


27 


Figure  7.  As  the  vine  looks  after  plowing  in  spring. 

be  rooted  by  the  grower  himself  or  they  may  be  bought  from 
the  nurseries.  If  the  cuttings  are  to  be  rooted  by  the  grower 
they  must  be  taken  either  in  the  fall  and  hilled-in  or  in  the 
spring.  In  any  event  they  should  be  planted  in  the  spring  in 
nursery  rows  where  good  care  may  be  taken  of  them.  The  fol- 
lowing spring  they  are  transplanted  to  a permanent  place  in  the 
vineyard.  In  case  the  vineyard  is  started  without  rooting  the 
cuttings  it  is  customary  to  plant  two  in  each  hole.  The  most 
common  distance  to  plant  vines  is  8 by  8 feet,  making  approxi- 
mately 680  vines  per  acre. 


28  WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 

SOILS. 

The  best  soils  are  sandy  or  sandy  loam.  The  heavy  soils 
are  not  desirable  for  best  results  with  grapes.  The  grape  will 
grow  on  poorer  soil  than  almost  any  other  fruit  and  as  a rule  it 
will  not  require  much  artificial  fertilizer.  The  grape  vine  is  a 
more  drought  resisting  plant  than  almost  any  other  fruit  and 
consequently  it  will  require  less  irrigation,  especially  when 
planted  on  good  grape  soil.  At  the  Station  the  vineyard  is 
irrigated  usually  from  four  to  six  times  during  the  year. 

VARIETIES. 

In  Station  Bulletins  Nos.  58  and  85,  some  reference  is 
made  to  the  varieties  best  adapted  to  our  irrigated  valleys  and 
basins-  In  these  bulletins  the  following  varieties  are  mentioned 
as  sastisfactory : — 

Early  Varieties:  Chasselas  de  Fontainebleau,  Chasselas 
Rose,  and  Thompson’s  Seedless. 

Mid-Season  Varieties : Black  Hamburg,  Muscat  of  Alex- 
andria, New  Mexico  Mission  and  Purple  Damascus. 

Late  Varieties:  Black  Cornichon,  Flame  Tokay,  Gros 
Coleman  and  Black  Ferrera. 

A good  collection,  ripening  in  succession,  would  be  the 
following:  Chasselas  de  Fontainebleau,  Thompson’s  Seedless, 
Black  Hamburg,  Muscat  of  Alexandria,  New  Mexico  Mission, 
Black  Cornichon,  Flame  Tokay  and  Black  Ferrara. 

PRUNING. 

The  present  system  of  pruning  the  vinifera  grape  in  New 
Mexico  is  that  known  as  the  stump  system.  After  the  vine  has 
been  properly  started  and  the  stump  has  been  established,  the 
cane  is  pruned  back  each  year  to  two  or  three  buds.  From  each 
of  these  buds  a shoot  will  develop  in  the  spring  and,  as  a rule, 
on  each  shoot  there  may  be  from  one  to  three  grape  bunches. 
The  more  buds  left  on  the  pruned  cane  the  more  shoots  will 
grow,  and  for  best  results,  as  far  as  good-sized  bunches  and 
good-sized  berries  are  concerned,  it  is  best  not  to  have  too  many 


WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 


29 


shoots  growing  from  the  pruned  canes.  Figure  8 gives  a good 
idea  of  the  way  the  vine  looks  after  it  is  pruned.  Notice  how 
severely  the  grape  vine  is  pruned.  Probably  no  other  fruit  is 
pruned  so  severely. 


Figure  8.  A well  trained  and  developed  stump.  (Bui.  58), 

The  time  of  pruning  is  quite  a common  question  among 
vineyardists.  This  is  an  important  matter,  too,  and  as  has  al- 
ready been  said,  because  of  the  susceptibility  of  young  shoots 
to  frost  injury,  it  is  necessary  to  delay  pruning  as  long  as  pos- 
sible in  the  spring.  If  the  pruning  is  done  early  in  the  season, 
some  of  the  buds  at  the  base  of  the  cane  may  start  a little  ear- 
lier than  if  the  pruning  is  delayed  as  late  as  possible  in  the 
spring.  However,  it  should  not  be  delayed  until  the  base-buds 
are  beginning  to  grow,  because  they  are  very  brittle  and  are 
liable  to  be  broken  off  when  the  cane  is  being  pruned. 

The  cost  of  pruning  may  vary  considerably,  depending  on 
the  condition  of  the  vineyard,  as  to  whether  it  has  been  properly 
cared  for  and  properly  pruned  in  the  past.  It  depends  also 
upon  whether  or  not  any  of  the  old  canes  have  died.  In  the 


SO  WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 


Figure  9.  After  the  vine  is  uncovered  and  before  pruning. 


carrying  out  of  these  experiments  the  pruning  has  cost,  from 
$3.00  to  $3.75  per  acre.  ; 


SUMMARY. 

1.  The  vinifera  grape  is  not  as  resistant  to  winter  tem- 
peratures as  the  native  varieties,  and  is  more  or  less  subject  to 
winter  injury. 

2.  The  results  at  the  Station  clearly  show  that  the  simple 
banking  up  of  the  dirt  around  the  vines  protected  them  during 
the  winter,  and  the  yields  were  very  satisfactory.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  unprotected  vines  were  winter  injured  every  time  ex- 


WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 


31 


cept  once,  when  there  was  considerable  rainfall  during  the  win- 
ter, 

3.  The  Emperor  and  Flame  Tokay  were  slightly  less 
hardy  to  the  winter  temperatures  than  the  Black  Cornichon; 
while  the  Muscat  of  Alexandria  and  the  New  Mexico  Mission 
were  more  resistant  than  any  of  the  other  varieties  tried. 

4.  The  irrigating  of  the  vines  alone  and  not  covering 
them  did  not  prevent  the  winter  killing  of  the  canes.  There 
were  just  as  many  vines  winter  injured  in  the  irrigated  plats 
as  there  were  in  the  non-irrigated  ones. 

5.  The  vines  that  were  irrigated  either  before  or  right 

after  covering,  did  not,  on  the  whole,  show  any  material  ad- 
vantage over  those  that  were  covered  and  not  irrigated. 
In  some  cases  the  covered  and  not  irrigated  plats  gave  as  large 
a yield  as  the  irrigated  ones.  : 

6.  The  irrigation  either  before  or  after  covering  did  not 
make  the  vines  any  more  susceptible  to  winter  injury.  The 
old  idea  that  covering  the  vines  with  moist  soil  tends  to  make 
them  less  hardy  was  not  substantiated  by  the  experimental  data 
obtained. 

7.  The  irrigation  of  the  land  just  before  covering  makes 
the  plowing  of  the  middles  and  the  banking  of  the  vines  easier. 
This  is  particularly  true  in  good  grape  soils — sandy  soils. 

8.  There  are  two  to  four  operations  necessary  in  the 
banking  up  of  the  plants : the  gathering  and  tying  of  the  canes ; 
the  irrigating  of  the  ground ; the  plowing  of  the  middles ; and 
the  building  of  the  mound.  The  tying  up  of  the  canes  may  be 
done  any  time  after  the  crop  has  been  gathered,  usually  just 
before  or  right  after  the  first  frost.  The  irrigation  of  the  land, 
if  it  is  irrigated,  may  be  done  after  all  the  leaves  have  fallen, 
usually  from  ten  to  fifteen  days  after  the  tying  up  of  the  canes. 
The  plowing  of  the  middles  may  be  done  from  four  to  eight 
days  after  the  irrigating.  The  time  depends  upon  the  charac- 
ter of  the  soil.  The  lighter  the  soil  the  quicker  the  plowing 


32  WINTER  PROTECTION  OF  THE  VINIFERA  GRAPE. 

may  be  done.  Immediately  after  the  plowing  of  the  middles 
the  vines  are  covered.  The  size  of  the  mound  depends  upon 
the  size  of  the  vines.  The  mound  should  be  high  enough  to 
cover  about  twelve  inches  of  the  current  year’s  growth  above 
the  old  stump. 

9.  In  the  uncovering  of  the  vines  the  dirt  is  first  plowed 
away  from  the  plants.  What  dirt  the  plow  leaves  around  the 
plant  is  pulled  away  either  with  a hoe  or  shovel. 

10.  Observations  at  the  Station  indicate  that  it  is  a good 
plan  to  uncover  the  vines  from  two  to  four  weeks  before  the 
pruning  takes  place.  If  they  are  left  Covered  until  pruning 
time  there  is  danger  of  the  base-buds  op  the  canes  starting  to 
grow.  If  this  happens  many  of  them  may  be  injured  while  the 
vines  are  being  uncovered  or  when  they  are  being  pruned. 

11.  Delay  the  pruning  of  the  vines  as  late  as  possible  in 
the  spring.  At  the  Station  the  pruning  is  usually  done  the  first 
week  in  April. 

12.  The  two  or  three  weeks’  difference  in  time  of  covering 
the  first  and  second  series  of  plats  did  not  show  any  material 
influence  on  the  yield.  However,  it  is  advisable  to  cover  the 
vines  early,  that  is,  from  two  to  three  weeks  after  the  first 
frost. 

13.  The  best  grane  soil  is  sandy  to  a sandy  loam.  The 
heavy  soils  are  not  desirable,  for  best  results  with  grapes. 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. 

It  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  acknowledge  the  valuable 
assistance  rendered  by  Mr.  J.  E.  Mundell,  former  Assistant 
Horticulturist  and  now  Superintendent  of  the  U.  S.  Dry  Farm 
Station  at  Big  Springs.  Tevas.  and  to  Mr.  A.  B.  Fite,  in  the 
carrying  out  of  these  experiments. 


BULLETIN  NO.  101 

MARCH.  1916 


New  Mexico  College  of  Agriculture 
And  Mechanic  Arts 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 
STATE  COLLEGE,  N.  M. 


Feeding  Range  Steers 


By  Luther  Foster  and  H.  H.  Simpson 


RIO  ORAMDE  PUBLISHING  CO. 
LAS  CRUCEC.  N.  M. 

teie. 


New  Mexico  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


BOARD  OF  CONTROL 


Board  of  Regents  of  the  College 

J.  H.  PAXTON,  President,  Las  Cruces,  N,  M. 

P.  F.  McCANNA,  Secretary  and  Treasurer,  Albuquerque,  N.  M. 

C.  W.  GERBER,  Las  Cruces,  N.  M. 

R.  R.  LARKIN,  East  Las  Vegas,  N.  M. 

J.  A.  MAHONEY,  Deming,  N.  M. 


Advisory  Members 

HON.  W.  C.  MCDONALD,  Governor  of  New  Mexico,  Santa  Fe,  N.  M. 
HON.  A.  N.  WHITE,  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction, 
Santa  Fe,  N.  M. 


STATION  STAFF 


GEORGE  E.  LADD,  Ph.  D President  of  the  Cellege 

FABIAN  GARCIA,  M.  S.  A Director  and  Horticulturist 

LUTHER  FOSTER,  M.  S.  A Animal  Husbandman 


F.  L.  BIXBY,  B.  S 

F.  W.  CHRISTENSEN,  M.  S..., 

D.  E.  MERRILL,  M.  S 

L.  A.  HIGLEY,  Ph.  D 

R.  L.  STEWART,  M.  S.  A 

D.  W.  A.  BLOODGOOD,  B.  S.... 

JOSE  QUINTERO,  B.  S 

Jo  R.  MEEKS,  B.  S.  A 

E.  H.  DIVELBISS,  B.  S.  A 

J,  G.  HAMILTON,  B.  S.  A 

E.  J.  MAYNARD,  B.  S.  A 

A.  B.  FITE,  B.  S.  A 


Irrigation  Engineer 

Nutrition  Chemist 

Biologist 

Chemist 

Agronomist 

....Assistant  Irrigation  Engineer 

Assistant  Chemist 

..Assistant  Animal  Husbandman 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

. . .Assistant  Animal  Husbandman 
Assistant  Horticulturist 


J.  T.  BARLOW,  B.  S.  A 

F.  C.  WERKENTHIN,  M.  A. 
R.  B.  THOMPSON,  B.  S.  A.. 

H.  G.  SMITH*,  B.  S.  A 

FLOY  E.  FRENCH 

R.  V.  WARE 

C.  P.  WILSON,  M.  S 

ARETUS  H.  BRADLEY 


Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  Biologist 

Assistant  Poultryman 

Assistant  in  Dry-Land  Agriculture 

Librarian 

Registrar 

Editor 

Station  Stenographer 


•Superintendent  df  the  Tucumcari,  N.  M.,  Field  Station,  operated  by  the 
U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  in  cooperation  with  the  New  Mextc* 
Agricultural  Rxpertment  Station. 


STEER  FEEDING 


INTRODUCTION 

This  bulletin  gives  the  results  of  two  experiments  conducted 
in  1909  and  1910,  at  a time  when  but  little  attention  was  being 
given  to  livestock  feeding  by  farmers  of  this  State,  but  the 
work  was  carried  on  in  anticipation  of  conditions  that  pre- 
vail today,  when  both  livestock  growers  and  farmers  are 
making  inquiry  into  the  feasibility  of  feeding  on  New  Mexico 
farms  a part  of  the  steers  produced  on  the  ranges  of  the 
State — at  least  a sufficient  number  to  supply  the  local  de- 
mands for  beef. 

These  results  tend  to  answer  the  questions  concerning  the 
relation  of  feeds  to  gains  and  the  comparative  values  of  the 
different  home-grown  crops  for  feeding;  also  the  most  econom- 
ical proportions  in  which  to  feed  these  crops  for  satisfactory 
results.  Grains  of  different  kinds,  for  example,  do  not  grow 
equally  well  in  all  parts  of  the  State.  Barley  gives  best  re- 
sults in  some  localities  where  the  altitude  is  too  high  and 
the  season  too  short  for  growing  a corn  crop.  Again,  in  the 
dry-farming  portions  kafir,  milo,  feterita  and  other  non-sac- 
charine sorghums  stand  the  effects  of  drouth  better  than 
other  crops,  mature  in  less  time,  and  are,  for  these  reasons, 
th/e  best  crops  for  those  localities.  While  the  results  of  these 
feeding  experiments  are  not  conclusive,  they  give  a decided 
indication  as  to  what  results  farmers  may  expect  to  get  in 
feeding  the  principal  grain  and  forage  crops  of  the  State  to 
range  steers. 


4 


FEEDING  * RANGE  STEERS 


EXPERIMENT  NO.  1. 


January  8,  1909,  to  April  8,  1909;  91  days. 

In  this  experiment  a comparison  was  made  of  the  feeding 
values  of  barley,  Indian  corn,  and  kafir  corn,  each  being  sup- 
plemented with  cottonseed  meal. 

A comparison  was  also  made  of  the  values  of  corn  stover 
and  kafir  corn  stover  for  replacing  a definite  portion  of  a 
roughage  ration  of  alfalfa. 

Another  object  of  the  experiment  was  to  determine  the 
effect  of  substituting  a comparatively  cheap  roughage  for 
a part  of  the  high  priced  alfalfa  hay;  on  the  gains,  the  cost 
of  the  gains  and  the  quality  of  the  product. 

Inquiries  are  frequently  made  as  to  the  values  of  barley 
and  kafir  corn  as  compared  with  corn,  for  stock  feeding. 
Tests  have  been  run  at  other  Stations  and  a general  idea  of 
their  comparative  values  has  been  determined;  but  whether 
this  would  apply  to  feeding  operations  in  New  Mexico  un- 
der entirely  different  conditions,  where  alfalfa  is  and  will 
likely  continue  to  be  the  chief  roughage,  is  a question  that 


Typical  New  Mexico  range  yearlings. 
(Lot  I,  at  beginning  of  experiment  No.  1). 


can  only  be  answered  by  actual  trial.  If  New  Mexico  is  to  be- 
come important  as  a feeding  center,  if  even  only  a portion  of 
the  large  number  of  range  cattle  that  are  raised  here  are  to 
be  fed  out  at  home,  then  such  crops  as  barley,  kafir,  and  al- 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


5 


falfa  will  have  to  be  depended  upon  largely  as  the  general 
feeds. 

The  business  of  fattening  steers  may  become  profitable 
through  furnishing  a market  for  home-grown  feed  crops,  con- 
centrating the  bulky  farm  products  into  minimum  space  for 
shipment,  and  leaving  their  fertilizing  value  on  the  farm. 

At  this  time,  when  feeding  stuffs  and  cattlie  are  both  high  in 
price  and  there  is  a very  small  margin  between  the  prices  of 
feeders  and  finished  cattle,  great  care  will  need  to  be  taken 
in  the  choice  of  the  feeds,  the  management,  and  the  selecting  of 
steers  for  feeding,  if  the  feeder  is  to  make  a profit. 

In  order  to  get  some  information  that  could  be  used  as  a 
guide  for  farmers  in  regard  to  steer  feeding  in  New  Mexico, 
this  experiment  and  others  were  undertaken. 


Steers  of  Lot  I at  close  of  experiment  No.  1.  This  lot  received 
a daily  ration  that  averaged  20  pounds  of  choice  alfalfa  hay,  8 pounds 
of  ground  barley,  and  2 pounds  of  cottonseed  meal  per  head. 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


Lot  II  at  the  close  of  experiment  No.  1.  During  the  91  days  of  the  experiment,  this  lot  received 
a daily  ration  that  averaged  20  pounds  of  choice  alfalfa  hay,  8 pounds  of  ground  corn,  and  2 pounds 
of  cottonseed  meal  per  head. 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


7 


THE  TEST 

Twenty- five  high  grade  yearling  steers  were  secured  from 
a range  in  the  vicinity,  of  Las  Cruces,  and  delivered  to  the  Sta- 
tion in  December,  1908.  They  were  good  representative  range 
animals,  20  being  high  grade  Here  fords  and  5 grade  Short- 
horns. One  Shorthorn  and  4 Hereford  steers  were  put  in 
each  lot.  The  steers  were  fed  on  roughage — oat  hay  and 
alfalfa  hay — until  January  8,  when  the  experiment  started. 


Lot  III,  at  close  of  experiment  No.  1.  During  the  91  days  this 
lot  received  a daily  ration  that  averaged  20  pounds  of  choice  alfalfa 
hay,  8 pounds  of  ground  kafir,  and  2 pounds  of  cottonseed  meal  per 
head. 


FEEDING 

The  various  lots  were  fed  as  follows: 


Lot  I.  Alfalfa  Hay 20  lbs.  per  day 

Ground  Barley  8 lbs.  per  day 

Cottonseed  Meal  2 lbs.  per  day 

Lot  II.  Alfalfa  Hay 20  lbs.  per  day 

Ground  Corn 8 lbs.  per  day 

Cottonseed  Meal  2 lbs.  per  day 

Lot  III.  Alfalfa  Hay  20  lbs.  per  day 

Ground  Kafir  8 lbs.  per  day 

Cottonseed  Meal  2 lbs.  per  day 

Lot  IV.  Alfalfa  Hay 10  lbs.  per  day 

Shredded  Corn  Stover  10  lbs.  per  day 

Ground  Kafir  8 lbs.  per  day 

Cottonseed  Meal  2 lbs.  per  day 

Lot  V.  Alfalfa  Hay 10  lbs.  per  day 

Shredded  Kafir  Corn  Stover  10  lbs.  per  day 

Ground  Kafir  8 lbs.  per  day 

Cottonseed  Meal  2 lbs.  per  day 


8 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


A part  of  the  steers  of  Lot  IV  at  the  close  of  experiment  No.  1. 
This  lot  received  a daily  ration  that  averaged  10  pounds  of  choice 
alfalfa  hay,  10  pounds  of  shredded  corn  stover,  8 pounds  of  ground 
kafir,  and  2 pounds  of  cottonseed  meal  per  head. 

Each  lot  was  started  on  5 pounds  grain  per  head  per  day  and 
the  quantity  was  gradually  increased  as  the  fattening  per- 
iod advanced.  All  lots  received  the  same  allowance  each 
day.  They  had  all  the  roughage  they  would  clean  up.  Lots 
IV  and  V received  corn  stover  and  kafir  stover,  respective- 
ly, as  one-half  thie.ir  roughage  allowance.  The  grain  was 
fed  in  two  feeds  per  day. 

The  feeds  used  in  the  experiments  reported  in  this  bul- 
letin are  estimated  at  the  following  prices : Indian  corn,  kafir 
corn  and  barley  $30.00  per  ton ; cottonseed  meal  $35.00  per  ton ; 
choice  alfalfa  hay  $10.00  per  ton;  corn  stover  and  kafir  corn 
stover,  both  shredded,  at  $6.00  per  ton.  With  the  exception  of 
the  cottonseed  meal,  these  feeds  were  either  raised  on  the  Sta- 
tion farm  or  purchased  from  local  farmers.  These  prices 
closely  approximate  the  prices  at  which  the  different  feeds 
could  have  been  secured  during  the  past  three  years,  if  pur- 
chased at  a favorable  time  of  the  year.  During  the  feeding 
season  just  past,  for  the  first  time  milo  maize  and  kafir 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


9 


Four  of  the  steers  of  Lot  V at  close  of  experiment  No.  1.  This 
Jot  received  a daily  ration  that  averaged  10  pounds  of  choice  alfalfa 
hay,  10  pounds  of  shredded  corn  stover,  8 pounds  of  ground  kafir,  and 
2 pounds  of  cottonseed  meal  per  head. 

were  delivered  at  the  railroad  stations  in  this  Valley  at  $20.00 
per  ton.  Should  this  price  continue,  it  will  have  a favorable 
effect  on  the  stock  feeding  problems  of  this  part  of  the  State. 

Bloating.— Considerable  trouble  was  experienced  from  bloat- 
ing at  various  times.  This  did  not  occur  until  after  the  steers 
had  been  on  feed  for  about  seven  weeks.  Only  certain  ones 
seemed  to  be  affected  and  it  usually  came  on  in  the  morning 
after  they  had  been  watered  and  as  soon  as  they  began  to- 
eat  their  grain  feed.  By  taking  the  bloated  ones  out  of  the 
lot  and  exercising  them  vigorously  for  a few  minutes,  the)r 
would  become  all  right  and  it  was  never  necessary  to  use 
the  trocar  to  relieve  any  of  them. 


10 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


TABLE  1. — WEIGHTS  AND  GAINS  BY  WEEKLY  PERIODS. 


Lot 

1. 

Lot 

II. 

Lot 

III. 

Lot  IV. 

Lot 

V. 

Date 

Alfalfa,  Ground  Barley,  and  | 

Cottonseed  Meal. 

Alfalfa,  Ground  Corn,  and  I 

Cottonseed  Meal. 

Alfalfa,  Ground  Kafir,  and 

Cottonseed  Meal. 

; 

Alfalfa,  Ground  Kafir,  Corn 

Stover,  and  Cottonseed  Meal 

Alfalfa,  Ground  Kafir, 

Kafir  Corn  Stover,  and 

Cottonseed  Meal. 

£ 

A • 

A 

.c 

A 

to  . 

G 

to 

3 

.to 

g 

to 

S3 

to 

S3 

<u 

<D 

’5 

'3 

d 

2 

'3 

’3 

■3 

£ 

0 

£ ! 

O 

£ ' 

O 

P 

O 

£ 

O 

o5 

m 

03 

03 

03 

03 

03 

03 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

*4 

4 

►J  | 

4 

4 

4 

4 

A 

4 | 

4 

Jan.  8 

2992 

| 2978| 

2902 

2925 

3017 

1 

Jan.  15  

2840 

—152 

| 2892| 

—86 

2763 

—139 

2890 

—35 

2925 

| —92 

Jan.  22 

2935 

95 

| 2958 | 

66 

2855 

92 

2915 

25 

2957 

| 32 

Jan.  29 

2967 

32 

| 2927| 

| -31 

2892 

37 

2930 

15 

2945 

-12 

Feb.  5 

3147 

180 

| 3125| 

| 198 

2977 

1 

| 85 

3050 j 120 

3120 

| 157 

Feb.  12  

3212 

65 

] 31931 

68 

3046 

| 69 

I 

3113 | 63 

3155 

53 

Feb.  19 

3270 

58 

;|  3289^ 

| 96 

3244 

| 198 

3197|  84 

3227 

| 73 

Feb.  2$ 

3421 

151 

,|  33891 

| 109 

3283 

| 39 

3297 

| 100 

3330 

| 103 

Mar.  5 

3525 

mj  3518 

| 120 

3337 

| 54 

3383 

| 86 

3402 

| 72 

Mar.  12 

1 I 1 

Did  not  weigh 

III!! 

on  account  of  heavy  snow 

1 I 

storm. 

Mar.  19 

3745 

| 22o|  3665 

| 147 

I 

| 3574 

| 237]  3558 

175 

\ 3603 

1 201 

Mar.  26 

3735 

| — 101  3760 

| 95 

| 3630 

| 56 

| 3620 

62]  3665 

! « 

AW-  2 

3865 

| 13o|  3837 

-3 

1 

| 3718 

1 1 

| 88|  3643 

23 

:|  3797 

| 132 

Apr.  9 

3918 

53 

I ! 

! 3938|  101 

J J - 

3788 

1 70 

1 

3840 

197 

' 3837 

j 4(J 

FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


11 


TABLE  2.— SHOWING  GENERAL  RESULTS  OF  TEST. 


w 

o 

A 

II  V>n 

in  ion 

> 

o 

►3 

> 

3 

Alfalfa,  Ground  Barley,  and 
Cottonseed  Meal. 

Alfalfa,  Ground  Corn,  and 

Cottonseed  Meal. 

Alfalfa,  Ground  Kafir,  and 

Cottonseed  Meal. 

Alfalfa,  .Shredded  Corn  Sto- 

ver, Ground  Kafir,  and  Cot- 
tonseed Meal. 

Alfalfa,  Shredded  Kafir 

Corn  Stover,  Ground  Kafir, 

and  Cottonseed  Meal. 

Weight  at  beginning,  lbs 

2992 

2978 

2902 

2925 

3017 

Weight  at  close,  lbs 

3918 

3938 

3788 

3840 

3837 

Total  gain  (5  steers),  lbs 

926 

960 

886 

915 

820 

Average  gain  per  head,  lbs 

185 

192 

177 

183 

164 

Average  daily  gain  per  head,  lbs 

2.04 

2.11 

1.95 

2.01 

1.84 

Ground  Barley  fed,  lbs 

2836 

Ground  Corn  fed,  lbs 

2843 

Ground  Kafir  fed,  lbs 

2808 

2858 

2832 

Cottonseed  meal  fed,  lbs 

709 

711 

702 

692 

708 

Alfalfa  hay  fed,  lbs 

6642 

6870 

6665 

3616 

3830 

Corn  Stover  fed,  lbs 

3867 

Kafir  Stover  fed,  lbs 

3950 

Average  daily  concentrate  per  head,  lbs. . . 

7.79 

7.81 

7.71 

7.80 

7.7S 

Average  daily  roughage  per  head,  lbs 

14.69 

15.09 

14.65 

16.45 

17.09 

Concentrate  fed  per  pound  of  gain,  lbs. . . . 

3.83 

3.79 

3.96 

3.88 

4.32 

Roughage  fed  per  pound  of  gain,  lbs 

7.17 

7.16 

7.52 

8.18 

9.49 

Cost  per  pound  of  gain  | 

9.52c| 

9.32c| 

| 9.90c! 

9.25c 

10.47c 

12 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


TABLE  3.— FINANCIAL  STATEMENT. 

As  an  illustration  to  indicate  what  returns  may  be  expected 
from  steer  feeding  at  the  present  time,  the  following  financial 
statement  is  made.  The  prices  for  feeds  used  are  approxi- 
mately those  that  have  prevailed  during  the  past  three  years. 
The  steers  were  such  as  could  have  been  bought  during  the 
past  two  or  three  years  at  about  $35.00  per  head,  or  $5.90  per 
hundredweight. 


LOT  1.  GROUND  BARLEY,  COTTONSEED  MEAL,  AND  ALFALFA  HAY. 


Value  of  5 steers,  weight  3918  lbs.,  at  $8.00  per  hundred- 
weight, at  close  of  experiment  

$318.44 

Value  of  5 steers,  weight  2992  lbs.,  at  $5.90  per  hundred- 
weight, at  beginning  of  experiment  

$176.53 

88.16 

.61 

Cost  of  2836  lbs.  of  Ground  Barley,  at  $30.00  per  ton 

Cost  of  709  lbs.  of  Cottonseed  Meal,  at  $35.00  per  ton. 
Cost  of  6642  lbs.  of  choice  Alfalfa  Hay,  at  $10.00  per  ton. 
At  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  this  lot  weighed 
29  lbs.  more  than  the  average  for  the  five  lots.  Since 
the  margin  of  $2.10  per  hundredweight  between  the 
buying  and  selling  prices  was  received  on  this  excess, 
there  is  deducted  from  the  profit  | 

$42.54 

12.41 

33.21 

265.80 

Profit  -on  lot,  due  to  feeding 

$ 48.14 

LOT  II.  GROUND  CORN,  COTTONSEED  MEAL,  AND  ALFALFA 

HAY. 

Value  of  5 steers,  weight  3938  lbs.,  at  $8.00  per  hundred- 
weight, at.  elnse  of  experiment  

$315.04 

Value  of  5 steers,  weight  2978  lbs.,  at  $5.90  per  hundred- 
weight, at  beginning  of  experiment  

$175.70 

89.44 

.32 

Cost  of  2843  lbs.  of  Ground  Corn,  at  $30.00  per  ton 

Cost  of  711  lbs.  of  Cottonseed  Meal,  at  $35.00  per  ton 
Cost  of  6870  lbs.  of  choice  Alfalfa  Hay,  at  $10.00  per  ton 
Margin  of  $2.10  per  hundredweight  on  15  pounds,  which 
this  lot  weighed  more  than  the  average  for  the  five  lots 

$42.65 

12.44 

$34.35 

265.46 

Profit  on  lot,  due  to  feeding  $ 49.6* 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


13 


LOT  III.  GROUND  KAFIR,  COTTONSEED  MEAL,  AND  ALFALFA  HAY. 


Value  of  5 steers,  weight  3788  lbs.,  at  $8.00  per  hundred- 
weight, at  close  of  experiment  

Margin  of  $2.10  per  hundredweight  on  61  pounds,  which 
this  lot  weighed  less  than  the  average  for  the  5 lots 
Value  of  5 steers,  weight  2902  lbs.,  at  $5.90  per  hundred- 
weight, at  beginning  of  experiment  

Cost  of  2808  lbs.  of  Ground  Kafir,  at  $30.00  per  ton 
Cost  of  702  lbs.  of  Cottonseed  Meal,  at  $35.00  per  ton 
Cost  of  6665  lbs.  of  choice  Alfalfa  Hay,  at  $10.00  per  ton 

Profit  on  lot,  due  to  feeding 


$303.04 

1.28 

$304.32 

171.22 

$42.12 

12.29 

33.33 

87.74 

258.96 

$45.36 


LOT  IV.  GROUND  KAFIR,  COTTONSEED  MEAL,  ALFALFA  HAY,  AND 
SHREDDED  CORN  STOVER. 


Value  of  5 steers,  weight  3840  lbs.,  at  $8.00  per  hundred- 
weight, at  close  of  experiment  

Margin  of  $2.10  per  hundredweight  on  38  pounds,  which 
this  lot  weighed  less  than  the  average  for  the  5 lots  ' 
Value  of  5 steers,  weight  2925  lbs.,  at  $5.90  per  hundred- 
weight, at  beginning  of  experiment  

Cost  of  2858  lbs.  of  Ground  Kafir,  at  $30.00  per  ton 

Cost  of  692  lbs.  of  Cottonseed  Meal,  at  $35.00  per  ton 
Cost  of  3616  lbs.  of  choice  Alfalfa  Hay,  at  $10.00  per  ton 
Cost  of  3867  lbs.  of  Shredded  Corn  Stover,  at  $6.00  per  ton 


$42.87 
12.11 
18.08 
11.60 

Profit  on  lot,  due  to  feeding 


$307.20 

.80 

$172.58 


$308.00 


257.24 


$ 50.76 


LOT  V.  GROUND  KAFIR,  COTTONSEED  MEAL,  ALFALFA  HAY,  AND 
SHREDDED  KAFIR  STOVER. 


Value  of  5 Steers,  weight  3837  lbs.,  a.t  $8.00  per  hundred- 
weight, at  close  of  experiment  

Value  of  5 steers,  weight  3017  lbs.,  at  $5.90  per  hundred- 
weight, at  beginning  of  experiment  

Cost  of  2832  lbs.  of  Ground  Kafir,  at  $30.00  per  ton 

Cost  of  708  lbs.  of  Cottonseed  Meal,  at  $35.00  per  ton 
Cost  of  3830  lbs.  of  choice  Alfalfa  Hay,  at  $10.00  per  ton 
Cost  of  3950  lbs.  of  Shredded  Kafir  Stover,  at  $6.00  per  ton 
Margin  of  $2.10  per  hundredweight  on  54  pounds,  which 


Profit  on  lot,  due  to  feeding 


$178.00 

$42.48 

12.39 

19.15 

11.85 

85.87 

1.13 

$306.96 


$ 41.9 


14 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


At  the  prices  given  above  the  farmer  would  receive  good 
returns  for  his  surplus  crops  and  a fair  profit  in.  addition. 
The  value  of  the  manure  would,  no  doubt,  in  many  cases 
offset  the  cost  of  the  labor  involved  in  the  feeding;  and  in 
some  instances  might  also  cover  the  cost  of  grinding  the 
grain.  The  returns  on  the  last  three  lots, — fed  kafir  corn, — 
would  be  greater  still  if  figured  at  the  present  price  of  this 
feed,  viz.,  $20.00  per  ton;  and  the  advantage  would  be  de- 
cidedly in  favor  of  the  kafir  fed  lots  and  would  make  steer 
feeding  a more  attractive  proposition  than  formerly.  The 
profit  on  Lot  III  would  be  increased  to  $59.40;  on  Lot  IV 
to  $65.05 ; and  on  Lot  V to  $56.12. 

At  the  time  this  experiment  was  conducted,  the  prices  of 
both  feeders  and  beef  cattle  were  very  low,  while  feed  prices 
did  not  differ  materially  from  the  present.  Figuring  the 
results  from  the  prices  actually  paid  for  the  steers  and  feed 
at  the  time,  and  that  received  for  the  finished  product,  every 
lot  was  fed  at  a loss.  The  cause  of  this  was  very  plain,  and 
showed  that  with  the  high  prices  paid  for  feeds,  a greater 
margin  between  cost  and  selling  prices  was  needed  in  order 
to  make  steer  feeding  profitable.  The  steers  cost  $17.00  per 
head,  which  was  $3.21  per  hundred  pounds,  and  they  sold  at 
$4.00;  the  proposition  being  handled  on  a margin  of  79  cents 
per  hundredweight.  As  the  steers  made  fairly  good  average 
gains,  ranging  from  1.80  to  2.11  pounds  per  head  pier  day, 
it  shows  that  the  loss  was  due  to  the  high  cost  of  feed  and 
small  margin  between  the  buying  and  selling  prices. 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


15 


WASTE 

In  the  comparisons  of  the  coarse  feeds,  the  refuse  or  waste 
is  an  important  consideration.  Taking  all  the  alfalfa  hay 
fed  to  the  five  lots,  the  refuse  amounted  to ‘an  average  of 
only  2.5  per  cent,  while  of  the  corn  stover  fed  to  a single  lot 
26.8  per  cent  was  rejected;  and  of  the  kafir  stover  the  re- 
fuse was  18.9  per  cent.  In  feeding  different  kinds  of  coarse 
feed  a certain  quantity  of  waste  is  considered  legitimate,  de- 
pending on  the  character  of  the  roughage.  One  would  nat- 
urally expect  a very  much  larger  amount  of  refuse  from 
stover  than  from  hay.  The  roughage  is  usually  the  element 
of  the  ration  of  which  the  steer  is  given  all  that  he  will  eat, 
the  quantity  being  governed  by  the  quantity  and  quality  of 
what  is  rejected.  The  quality  of  the  two  kinds  of  stover 
fed  seemed  practically  the  same,  but  the  steers  ate  the  kafir 
stover  with  greater  relish  and  rejected  a very  much  smaller 
percentage  of  it,  as  shown  by  the  statement  above.  Compar- 
ing the  stover  with  the  alfalfa  hay  at  the  relative  prices  of 
$6.00  and  $10.00  per  ton,  and  taking  into  account  the  waste 
less  2.5  per  cent  on  all,  the  corn  stover  actually  eaten  would 
have  cost  $7.92  per  ton  and  the  kafir  stover  $7.18. 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  experiment  gives  data  covering 
Three  questions,  viz.,  first,  as  to  the  comparative  feeding  val- 
ues of  ground  corn,  ground  barley,  and  ground  kafir  for  fat- 
tening steers;  secondly,  as  to  the  substitution  of  a cheaper 
roughage  for  a portion  of  the  alfalfa -hay j and  thirdly,  a com- 
parison of  kafir  com  stover  with  corn  stover  for  this  pur- 
pose. Keeping  these  three  things  in  mind,  the  first  three  lots 
of  the  experiment  should  be  studied  together  and  the  last 
three  lots  together. 


16 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


SUMMARY 

1.  It  required  103.4  pounds  of  ground  barley  to  produce 
as  much  gain- as  100  pounds  of  ground  corn;  showing  bar- 
ley to  be  3.3  per  cent  below  corn  in  feeding  value. 

2.  It  required  107  pounds  of  ground  kafir  corn  to  pro- 
duce as  much  gain  as  100  pounds  of  ground  corn,  indicating 
that  kafir  corn  is  about  6.6  per  cent  below  corn  in  feeding 
value. 

3.  It  required  103.5  pounds  of  ground  kafir  corn  to  pro- 
duce as  much  gain  as  100  pounds  of  ground  barley,  indi- 
cating that  kafir  corn  is  about  3.4  per  cent  below  barley  in 
feeding  value. 

4.  The  above  results  in  which  the  grains  alone  were  con- 
sidered show  corn  to  be  superior  to  either  of  the  other  grains 
as  a concentrate,  but  this  is  largely  overcome  for  barley,  and 
partially  so  for  kafir,  by  the  larger  quantity  of  alfalfa  hay 
used  by  the  corn  fed  lot  than  by  either  of  the  other  two. 

5.  Considering  the  last  three  lots,  replacing  about  one- 
half  the  alfalfa  hay  with  corn  stover  resulted  favorably,  in- 
creasing the  gains  3.3  per  cent  and  producing  them  at  sixty- 
five  cents  per  hundred  pounds  less.  The  substitution  of  kafir 
stover  reduced  the  gains  7.4  per  cent  and  made  them  cost 
fifty-seven  cents  per  hundredweight  more. 

6.  The  substitution  of  corn  stover  for  a part  of  the  alfalfa 
hay  increased  the  feeding  value  of  the  ration,  while  the  sub- 
stitution of  the  kafir  stover  decreased  it,  and  it  required  12 
per  cent  less  of  the  corn  stover  for  100  pounds  of  gain. 

7.  The  results  of  this  experiment  show  that  a farmer  may 
grow  for  feeding  purpose's  whichever  of  the  grain  crops  tested 
yield  the  best  in  his  locality,  and  are  best  suited  to  the  cli- 
matic conditions.  Corn,  barley,  and  kafir  are  very  similar 
in  composition,  barley  and  kafir  each  carrying  1.5  per  cent 
more  digestible  crude  protein  than  corn,  the  barley  3 per  cent 
less  digestible  fat,  and  the  kafir  2.3  per  cent  less.  Hence 
their  nutritive  values  differ  but  little.  Corn  is  the  most 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


17 


palatable  of  the  three,  and  kafir  the  least.  The  percentages 
of  digestible  matter  in  barley  and  kafir  are  practically  the 
same — about  80  per  cent ; while  in  corn  it  is  about  5 per  cent 
higher.  They  all  give  good  results  when  fed  with  some 
leguminous  hay,  such  as  alfalfa  or  cowpeas;  but  with  a car- 
bohydrate roughage  such  as  timothy  hay,  corn  and  kafir  stover, 
they  should  be  supplemented  with  a protein-rich  concentrate, 
such  as  cottonseed  meal.  All  of  the  non-saccharine  sorghums, 
including  kafir,  milo,  and  feterita,  are  practically  equal  in 
feeding  value. 


18 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


EXPERIMENT  NO.  2. 

January  19,  1910,  to  April  18,  1910;  90  Days 

The  object  of  this  test  was  to  find  the  most  economical 
method  of  fattening  range  steers  under  prevailing  New  Mex- 
ico conditions  and  with  feeds  grown  at  home  or  with  those 
most  readily  available. 

In  planning  this  experiment  it  was  the  idea  to  find  the 
cheapest  way  to  fatten,  and  with  this  in  mind,  the  first  ques- 
tion was,  Can  steers  be  fattened  on  alfalfa  alone,  or  on  alfalfa 
and  corn  stover,  or  must  they  have  grain,  and  if  so,  what  is 
the  minimum  quantity  that  will  give  satisfactory  results? 


Lot  I at  close  of  experiment  No.  2;  fed  choice  alfalfa  hay  at 
night  and  shredded  corn  stover  in  the  morning. 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


10 


Lat  II  at  close  of  experiment  No.  2;  fed  choice  alfalfa  hay  alone 
during  the  whole  90-day  test. 


STEERS  USED 

The  steers  used  were  long  yearlings,  the  same  age  as  those 
used  in  the  previous  experiment,  but  the  summer  and  fall  of 
1909  were  very  dry  and  the  ranges  very  poor;  in  consequence 
the  steers  were  smaller  and  much  poorer  than  the  average 
animal  of  that  age  should  be;  in  fact,  the  average  weights 
show  them  to  be  200  pounds  lighter  per  head  than  those  of 
the  year  before.  The  steers  were  such  as  could  have  been 
bought  during  the  past  two  or  three  years  at  about  $28.00  a 
head,  or  $7.49  per  hundredweight.  They  were  of  the  same 
breeding  and  had  run  on  the  same  range  as  those  of  the  pre- 
vious year.  There  were  16  grade  Herefords  and  4 grade  Short- 
horns. Delivery  was  made  on  the  10th  of  January,  and  until  the 
test  began  on  January  19,  they  were  fed  on  roughage,  consist- 
ing of  alfalfa  hay  and  wheat  and  oat  hay,  and  were  all  kept  to- 
gether. In  dividing  into  the  different  lots,  one  grade  Short- 
horn and  4 Herefords  were  put  into  each,  and  they  were  chosen 
according  to  weight,  conformation,  and  general  characteristics, 
in  order  to  get  the  lots  as  equally  balanced  as  possible. 

Since  some  little  trouble  was  experienced  the  previous  year 
from  the  larger  steers  fighting  the  smaller  ones  away  from  the 
feed  racks,  it  was  decided  that  they  would  all  have  a better 
chance  if  dehorned.  Consequently,  on  January  18  and  19, 
they  were  all  dehorned  with  the  clippers. 


20 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


Steers  of  Lot  III  at  close  of  experiment  No.  2.  This  lot  was 
fed  choice  alfalfa  hay  night  and  morning  and  8 pounds  of  ground  corn 
per  head  per  day  during  the  90-day  test. 

FEEDS  AND  FEEDING 

The  lots  were  fed  as  follows : 

Lot  I.  Alfalfa  hay  at  night.  Corn  stover  in  the  morning. 

Lot  II.  Alfalfa  hay  both  night  and  morning. 

Lot  III.  Alfalfa  hay  both  night  and  morning.  8 lbs. 
ground  corn  per  head  per  day  for  the  entire  period. 

Lot.  IV.  Alfalfa  hay  both  night  and  morning.  10  lbs. 
ground  corn  per  head  per  day  during  the  last  30  days. 

The  alfalfa  hay  and  stover  for  Lot  I were  fed  in  such 
quantities  as  the  steers  would  clean  up,  the  thought  being 
to  allow  each  lot  to  utilize  just  what  it  would,  and  not  an 
equal  quantity.  The  grain  for  Lots  III  and  IV  was  fed  in 
one  feed  in  the  morning.  The  feeds  were  purchased  on  the 
local  market,  although  the  corn  used  was  Kansas  corn,  ex- 
cept that  fed  during  the  last  ten  days,  which  was  Mexican 
spotted  corn.  The  steers  did  not  eat  this  as  well  as  the  other. 

Some  little  trouble  was  experienced  with  some  of  the  steers 
scouring  during  the  first  part  of  the  test,  but  it  never  remain- 
ed long.  It  usually  came  after  a few  days  of  continuous  in- 
crease in  the  quantity  of  hay. 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


21 


Four  of  the  steers  of  Lot  IV  at  close  of  experiment  No.  2;  fed 
choice  alfalfa  hay  night  and  morning,  and  in  addition,  10  pounds  of 
ground  corn  per  head  per  day  during  the  last  30  days  of  the  experi- 
ment. 


It  required  only  a few  days  to  get  Lot  III  started  to  eat- 
ing its  grain,  a little  less  time  being  required  than  for  pre- 
vious steers. 

TABLE  4—  SHOWING  GENERAL  RESULTS  OF  TEST. 


Loti 

Lot  II 

Lot  III 

Lot  IV 

Alfalfa  and  Corn  Stover  1 

ujiujiv 

Alfalfa  and  8 lbs.  of  Ground 
Corn  per  head  per  day  dur- 
ing the  entire  90-day-  test. 

Alfalfa  during  entire  test;  10 
lbs.  Ground  Corn  per  head 
per  day  last  30  days. 

Weight  at  beginning,  lbs 

1859 

1908 

1888 

1821 

Weight  at  close,  lbs 

2485 

2736 

3051 

2748 

Total  gain  (5  steers),  lbs 

626 

828 

1163 

927 

Average  gain  per  head,  lbs 

125 

166 

233 

185 

Average  daily  gain  per  head,  lbs 

1.39 

1.84 

2.58 

2.06 

Alfalfa  hay  fed,  lbs 

3155 

6849 

4904 

6361 

Corn  stover  fed,  lbs 

3046 

Ground  corn  fed,  lbs 

3008 

976 

Concentrate  fed  per  pound  of  gain,  lbs 

2.59 

1.05 

Roughage  fed  per  pound  of  gain,  lbs 

9.91 

8.27 

4.22 

6.86 

Cost  per  pound  of  gain  | 

3.98c| 

4.14c| 

5.99c 

5.01c 

22 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


Lot  I.  Alfalfa  Hay  and  Corn  Stover. 


Value  of  5 steers,  weight  2485  lbs.,  at  $8.00  per  hundred- 
weight, at  close  of  experiment  

$198.80 

.05 

$139.24 

24.92 

Margin  of  51c  per  hundredweight  on  10  pounds,  which 
this  lot  weighed  less  than  the  average  for  the  5 lots. 
Value  of  5 steers,  weight  1859  lbs.,  at  $7-49  per  hundred- 
weight, at  beginning  of  experiment  

$198.85 

Cost  of  3155  lbs.  of  choice  Alfalfa  Hay,  at  $10.00  per  ton. 
Cost  of  3046  lbs.  of  Corn  Stover,  at  $6.00  per  ton 

$15.78 

9.14 

164.16 

Profit  on  lot,  due  to  feeding  $ 34.69 


Lot  II.  Alfalfa  Hay. 


Value  of  5 steers,  weight  2736  lbs.,  at  $8.00  per  hundred- 
weight, at  close  of  experiment  

1 

| 

$218.88 

Value  of  5 steers,  weight  1908  lbs.,  at  $7.49  per  hundred- 
weight, at  beginning  of  experiment  

| $142. 91 
| 34.25 

1 

| .20 

Cost  of  6849  lbs.  of  choice  Alfalfa  Hay,  at  $10.00  per  ton. 
Margin  of  51c  per  hundredweight  on  39  pounds,  which 
this  lot  weighed  more  than  the  average  for  the  5 lots. 

177.36 

Profit  on  lot,  due  to  feeding 

$ 41.52 

Lot  III.  Alfalfa  Hay  and  8 pounds  of  Ground  Corn  per  head  per  day  during 
the  entire  90-day  test. 


Value  of  5 steers,  weight  3051  lbs.,  at  $8.00  per  hundred- 
weight, at  olosp  of  experiment  

$244.08 

Value  of  5 steers,  weight  1888  lbs.,  at  $7.49  per  hundred- 
weight at  beginning  of  experiment  

$141.41 

69.64 

.10 

Cost  of  4904  lbs.  of  choice  Alfalfa  Hay,  at  $10.00  per  ton. 
Cost  of  3008  lbs.  of  Ground  Corn,  at  $30.00  per  ton... 
Margin  of  51c  per  hundredweight  on  19  pounds,  which 
this  lot  weighed  more  than  the  average  for  the  5 lots| 

$24.52 

45.12 

! 

211.15 

Profit  on  lot,  due  to  feeding  $ 32.93 


Lot  IV.  Alfalfa  Hay  during  the  entire  test,  and  in  addition,  10  pounds  of 
Ground  Corn  per  head  per  day  during  the  last  30  days. 


Value  of  5 steers,  weight  2748  lbs.,  at  $8.00  per  hundred-] 

weight,  at  close  of  experiment  1 

Margin  of  51c  per  hundredweight  on  48  pounds,  which 
this  lot  weighed  less  than  the  average  for  the  5 lots] 

| j 

$219.84 

.24 

$220.08 

’alue  of  5 steers,  weight  1821  lbs.,  at  $7.49  per  hundred- 
weight, at  beginning  of  experiment  

Cost  of  6361  lbs.  of  choice  Alfalfa  Hay,  at  $10.00  per  ton] 
Cost  of  976  lbs.  of  Ground  Corn,  at  $30.00  per  ton 

$31.81| 
| 14.64] 

$136.39 

[ 46.45 

182.84 

Profit  on  lot,  due  to  feeding 

$ 37.24 

FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


23 


SUMMARY 

1.  The  cheapest  gains  were  made  by  the  alfalfa  and  stover, 
though  those  made  by  alfalfa  hay  alone  cost  very  little 
more.  The  most  expensive  gains  were  made  by  the  lot  fed 
on  a small  concentrate  ration  during  the  entire  period. 

2.  The  market  prices  of  the  different  lots,  judged  ac- 
cording to  finish  or  quality,  were  as  follows:  Lot  I,  $6.50; 
Lot  II,  $7.00;  Lot  III,  $8.00;  and  Lot  IV,  $7.50.  These  rela- 
tive prices  would  doubtless  have  held  in  any  classified  market. 

3.  According  to  the  classification  given  above,  the  pro- 
fits per  lot  are  in  direct  proportion  to  the  cost  of  the  gains; 
i.  e.,  Lot  III,  whose  gains  were  made  at  the  highest  cost,  gave 
the  largest  profit;  and  Lot  I,  whose  gains  were  made  at  the 
lowest  cost,  gave  the  least  profit, — indicating  that' the  finish 
required  by  the  markets  can  be  most  readily  secured  by  feeding 
a concentrate  ration  with  alfalfa  hay  or  other  roughage. 

4.  Basing  this  statement  on  a comparison  of  the  gains 
made  by  Lots  II  and  III,  it  required  827  pounds  of  alfalfa 
hay  to  make  100  pounds  of  gain,  or  527  pounds  of  corn ; show- 
ing that  as  fed  100  pounds  of  corn  replaced  156  pounds  of 
alfalfa  hay.  At  the  prices  given  for  the  different  feeds,  78 
cents’  worth  of  alfalfa  hay  replaced  $1.50  worth  of  corn. 

5.  Considering  the  market  prices  the  same  for  Lots  III 
and  IV,  the  results  are  favorable  to  feeding  a small  concern 
trate  ration  during  the  whole  fattening  period,  rather  than 
a larger  concentrate  ration  for  a thirty-day  period  at  the 
close;  and  the  result  shows  still  more  favorably  at 'classified 
market  prices. 

6.  If  sold  on  the  local  markets  where  no  distinction  is 
made  in  price  on  account  of  better  finish,  it  may  be  more 
profitable  to  feed  on  roughage  alone,  particularly  alfalfa  hay, 
and  make  the  feeding  period  longer;  or  on  rough  feed  alone 
during  the  fore  part  of  the  period  and  add  a grain  ration 
only  during  the  finishing  period  of  thirty  to  sixty  days. 

7.  The  alfalfa-corn-stover  lot  ate  the  limited  alfalfa  hay 


24 


FEEDING  RANGE  STEERS 


ration  without  waste,  while  there  was  19.6  per  cent  of  the 
stover  rejected.  The  other  lots  rejected  an  average  of  8.2  per 
cent  of  the  alfalfa.  Lot  II  on  alfalfa  alone  rejected  the  least: 
5.9  per  cent.  Lot  III,  receiving  a constant  grain  ration,  rejected 
the  most : 1 1 per  cent ; and  Lot  IV,  with  grain  the  last  month, 
rejected  8.4  per  cent. 


0{  Mr’caUU'e 

CoUefee  °;  of  itfVn°lS 
University 

BULLETIN  NO.  102 

APRIL,  1916 


New  Mexico  College  of  Agriculture 
And  Mechanic  Arts 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 
STATE  COLLEGE,  N.  M 


Fig.  1.  Differential  locust  (male)  at  right;  lesser  locust  (male)  at 
left.  Nearly  natural  size.  (Original.) 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 

By  D.  E.  Merrill 


RUG  GRANGE  PUBLISHING  CO 
LAS  CRUCES.  N.  M. 

«»»«. 


New  Mexico  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


BOARD  OF  CONTROL 


Board  of  Regents  of  the  College 

J.  H.  PAXTON,  President,  Las  Cruces,  N.  M. 

P.  F.  McCANNA,  Secretary  and  Treasurer,  Albuquerque,  N.  M. 

C.  W.  GERBER,  Las  Cruces,  N.  M. 

R.  R.  LARKIN,  East  Las  Vegas,  N.  M. 

J.  A.  MAHONE'Y,  Deming,  N.  M. 


Advisory  Members. 

HON.  W.  C.  MCDONALD,  Governor  of  New  Mexico,  Santa  Fe,  N.  M. 
HON.  A.  N.  WHITE,  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction, 
Santa  Fe,  N.  M. 


STATION  STAFF 


GEORGE  E.  LADD,  Ph.  D. . . . 
FABIAN  GARCIA,  M.  S.  A..  . . 
LUTHER  FOSTER,  M.  S.  A. 

F.  L.  BIXBY,  B.  S 

F.  W.  CHRISTENSEN,  M.  S. 

D.  E.  MERRILL,  M.  S 

L.  A.  HIGLEY,  Ph.  D 

R.  L.  STEWART,  M.  S.  A 

D.  W.  A.  BLOODGOOD,  B.  S. 

JOSE  QUINTERO,  B.  S 

J.  R.  MEEKS,  B.  S.  A 

E.  H.  DIVELBISS,  B.  S.  A..  . . 

J.  G.  HAMILTON,  B.  S.  A 

E.  J.  MAYNARD,  B.  S.  A 

A.  B.  FITE,  B.  S.  A 

J.  T.  BARLOW,  B.  S.  A 

F.  C.  WERKENTHIN,  M.  A.. 
R.  B.  THOMPSON,  B.  S.  A... 

H.  G.  SMITH*,  B.  S.  A 

FLOY  E.  FRENCH 

R.  V.  WARE 

€.  P.  WILSON,  M.  S 

ARETUS  H.  BRADLEY 


President  of  the  College 

Director  and  Horticulturist 

Animal  Husbandman 

Irrigation  Engineer 

Nutrition  Chemist 

Biologist 

Chemist 

Agronomist 

Assistant  Irrigation  Engineer 

Assistant  Chemrst 

...Assistant  Animal  Husbandman 

.Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

. . . .Assistant  Animal  Husbandman 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  Biologist 

Assistant  Poultryman 

Assistant  in  Dry-Land  Agriculture 

Librarian 

Registrar 

Editor 

Station  Stenographer 


•Superintendent  of  the  Tucumcari,  N.  M.,  Field  Station,  operated  by  the 
TJ.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  in  cooperation  with  the  New  Mexice 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 


SUMMARY 


1.  Every  part  of  the  State  is  liable  to  grasshopper  damage; 
without  attention  such  injury  will  increase;  preventable 
losses  in  dollars  and  cents  are  enormous;  damages  through 
occasional  serious  outbreaks  increase  the  toll. 

2.  Damage  is,  in  the  main,  from  non-migratory  species. 

3.  Natural  enemies  are  numerous  but  can  not  be  depended 
upon  always  to  keep  the  grasshoppers  in  check. 

4.  Alfalfa,  garden  and  truck  crops,  grains  and  young  fruit 
trees  suffer  most  from  grasshopper  attack. 

5.  Control  is  possible  and  practicable  thru  destruction  of 
breeding  places  and  eggs  and  thru  destruction  of  the  grass- 
hoppers by  poisoning  or  by  capture  with  machines  for  that 
purpose. 

6.  For  best  results  control  measures,  both  preventive  and  rem- 
edial, should  be  made  a part  of  the  annual  farm  program  and 
shrould  have  community  enforcement. 

7.  Provisions  should  be  made  for  compelling  treatment  on 
idle  land  where  necessary. 


INTRODUCTION 


This  bulletin  is  the  outcome  of  investigations  carried  on 
since  the  summer  of  1912,  with  the  exception  of  the  summer 
of  1914  when  the  work  was  practically  inactive. 

Most  of  the  control  experiments  were  carried  on,  necessar- 
ily, in  the  Mesilla  Valley. 

In  1915,  aided  by  instructions  from  the  Experiment  Station, 
County  Agents  J.  Wj1.  Rigney  and  J.  W.  Knorr  extended  the 
control  experiments  into  the  Pecos  Valley,  also,  into  Chaves 
and  Eddy  Counties,  respectively.  The  important  part  of  the 
data  secured  there  is  included  in  this  bulletin. 

The  attempt  has  been  made  to  learn  sufficient  concerning 
the  principal  species  of  grasshoppers  concerned  in  the  ravages 
in  the  State  to  permit  of  judicious  direction  of  control  meth- 
ods. No  attempt  was  made  to  work  up  data  on.  all  the  Grass- 
hoppers of  the  State. 

Every  newly  developed  agricultural  region  is  liable  to  grass- 
hopper damage,  since  the  cultivated  area  is  less  than  the  un- 
cultivated and  since  cultivated  crops  are  quite  apt  to  be  kept 
in  more  palatable  conditions  for  longer  time  than  uncultivated 
and  are  massed  and  more  readily  accessible. 

Since  the  days  of  the  scourge  of  the  Rocky  Mountain  Lo- 
cust damage  from  grasshoppers  has  been  confined  to  species 
native  to  localities  or  regions  in  which  injury  was  done  either 
by  non-migratory  or  semi-migratory  species,  any  migrations 
being  comparatively  short  and  local,  as  from  higher  to  lower 
levels  of  land,  or  occasionally  from  nearby  regions  of  scant 
vegetation  to  regions  of  greater  abundance.  An  outbreak  and 
the  ravages  in  eastern  New  Mexico  of  a more  or  less  migra- 
tory species  (Dfasfisteria  longipennis  Thomas)  have  been 
treated  of  by  the  U..  S.  Department  of  Agriculture  in  Depart- 
ment Bulletin' No.  293. 

It  Is  important  to  be  prepared  beforehand  against  this  pest 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


* 


so  outbreaks  may  be  forestalled — a wiser  procedure  than  at- 
tempting to  fight  hordes  allowed  to  breed  through  careless- 
ness. In  our  farming  regions  already  the  damage  has  been 
considerable.  As  the  area  of  crops  increases  the  liability  to 
damage  will  increase  if  no  precautions  are  taken,  as  conditions 
will  be  ripe  to  favor  the  increase  of  the  hoppers, — succulent 
feeding  areas  with  plenty  of  waste  ground  to  breed  in,  such  as 
ditch  banks,  unkept  borders  of  fields  and  roadsides  and  fallow 
land.  Sod  land  is  not  much  infested  except  at  the  edges. 

In  fact,  damage  will  result  from  lax  farming  methods  and 
individual  carelessness.  Most  of  our  injurious  species  breed, 
live  and  die  right  in  one  field.  Control,  then  becomes  personal 
in  its  application,  every  man’s  need,  an  item  in  the  individual’s 
farm  management.  It  must  be  made  preventive  in  the  main, 
as  shown  later  in  the  bulletin. 

At  times  the  problem  may  become  one  for  concerted  action 
in  a crisis,  but  at  all  times  the  problem  is  one  for  every  farmer 
to  consider.  Crises  will  then  be  rare,  indeed.  If  some  indiv- 
iduals are  lax,  action  on  the  part  of  other  individuals  may  be 
necessary  to  get  them  to  realize  the  importance  of  such  con- 
sideration. 

The  information  contained  in  the  following  pages  will  apply 
to  the  various  sections  of  the  State,  irrigated,  dry  farmed  or 
otherwise,  although  each  section  will  need  to  adopt  control 
methods  to  suit  its  needs. 

To  make  the  discussion  plainer  to  some,  perhaps,  it  may 
be  stated  that  the  terms  “locust”  and  “grasshopper”  are  used 
synonymously.  The  term  “locust”  is  applied  by  many  to  the 
big,  noisy  cicada  or  Harvest  fly,  so  the  above  explanation  will 
help  to  avoid  confusion. 


6 GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 

NATURE  AND  EXTENT  OF  INJURY 

Grasshoppers  belong  to  the  group  of  insects  that  feed  by 
consuming  the  substance  of  the  plant  outright.  Their  strong 
jaws  enable  them  to  eat  the  leaves  and  tender  parts  of  the 
plants  with  astonishing  rapidity.  In  this  way  large  areas 
may  be  stripped  clean  of  all  but  the  less  palatable  stalks  of 
food  plants,  if  the  number  of  the  hoppers  is  great,  and  whole 
crops  destroyed.  This  is  the  sort  of  injury  that  makes  the 
person  concerned  take  notice  and  call  for  help — usually  after 
the  damage  is  practically  done.  However,  there  is  an  enor- 
mous amount  of  loss  every  year  to  crops,  especially  alfalfa, 
that  is  never  noticed  due  to  the  feeding  of  the  hoppers  that 
are  always  present  in  numbers  somewhat  below  what  may  be 
called  scourge  proportions.  The  young  are  small  and  incon- 
spicuous but  they  feed  right  along  and  always  on  choice  parts 
of  the  plants.  The  adults  may  be  numerous  enough  to  eat 
the  edges  of  the  fields  out  some  short  distance,  but  still  their 
presence  is  regarded  as  a matter  of  course  and  no  steps  are 
taken  to  prevent  the  injury.  This  yearly  loss  is  thus  very  in- 
sidious but  likely  amounts  to  as  much  as  the  occasional  lump 
losses  during  outbreaks. 

In  1911  and  1912  grasshopper  damage  in  the  Animas  region 
was  rather  severe.  In  1912  and  1913  in  the  upper  part  of  the 
Mesilla  Valley  considerable  damage  was  done  in  localized 
areas.  In  the  lower  part  of  the  valley  in  1912  the  promise 
was  for  a worse  infestation  the  next  year.  A warning  was  not 
heeded  and  in  1913  the  injury  was  very  severe  over  most  of 
the  area  cited.  The  climax  seemed  to  be  reached  that  season 
and  since  damage  has  been  less.  This  latter  condition  is  due 
a!co  to  more  consideration  being  given  the  control  of  the  pest 
annually.  In  1914  various  sections  of  the  northern  part  of 
the  State  reported  local  injury. 

In  the  Pecos  Valley  damage  has  been  considerable  since 
1911,  but  apparently  the  crisis  of  the  infestation  was  reached 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


7 


last  season,  1915,  when  enormous  losses  resulted  through  tht 
Valley,  in  spite  of  the  control  measures  applied  too  tardily. 

The  account  of  the  outbreak  of  1913  in  the  Elida  district 
has  been  cited. 

Every  season  reports  damage  from  one  place  or  another, 
showing  the  pest  to  be  a general  one  over  the  State  but  show- 
ing also  the  damage  is  local  and  calls  for  local  consideration. 


SPECIES  OF  GRASSHOPPERS  CONCERNED  IN  INJURY 

The  number  of  species  occasioning  the  usual  damage  is  not 
large.  The  following  list*  may  lack  a few  kinds  injurious  in 
parts  of  the  State  where  the  writer  has  not  had  the  oppor- 
tunity to  visit.  Inquirks  for  information  on  grasshoppers 
almost  always  come  to  the  Station  unaccompanied  by  speci- 
mens, since  nearly  every  one  knows  grasshoppers  as  such 
and  does  not  stop  to  consider  what,  if  any,  species  may  be 
more  injurious  than  others. 

Of  the  list  bdow,  probably  the  first  three  occasion  more 
damage  than  any  others. 


DESCRIPTIONS 

The  differential  locust  ( Melon o plus  differ entialis)  (Figs. 
1 and  2)  is  a large  species  about  11-2  in.  long  with  wing 
expanse  of  2 1-2  inches.  It  is  yellowish-green  in  color,  there 
being  sometimes  a darker  variety.  The  under  side  is  a bright- 
er yellow.  The  hind  wings  are  yellowish,  marked  with  black. 

The  two-striped  locust  ( Melanoplus  bivittatus)  is  nearly 
the  same  size  as  the  above,  but  of  a greenish-brown  color, 
with  a distinct  yellow  stripe  on  each  side  from  eye  to  end  oi 
wing. 


♦Note.  The  identifications  of  the  species  listed  were  kindly  verified 
by  Mr.  M.  P.  Somes,  Entomologist,  Mountain  Grove  (Missouri)  Fruit 
Experiment  Station, 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


I 


Fig.  2. — Differential  locust  (Melanoplus  differentialis),  female,  at  left, 
male  in  center.  At  right  a blister  beetle  (Macrobasis  longicollis). 
Nearly  natural  size.  (Original.) 

The  lesser  locust  (Melanoplus  atlanis)  (Fig  1.)  is  a smaller 
species,  one  inch  or  less  in  length,  of  a dark  grayish-  or  red- 
dish-brown color.  The  wings  are  long  and  hind  femora  red- 
dish-yellow. 

The  common  red-legged  locust  ( Melanoplus  feniur-rubrum) 
is  so  like  the  last  species  above  that  the  two  are  difficult  to 
separate,  except  on  structural  characters.  This  species  is  very 
slightly  larger  than  the  lesser  locust  and  the  hind  femora  are 
more  of  a red-brown  color. 

The  three-striped  locust,  ( lladrotettix  trifasciatus)  is  a larg- 
er species  than  the  first  two,  even.  It  is  a pale  tan  color  with 
three  dark  bars  across  the  wing  covers  and  inner  surface  of 
hind  legs  blue. 

The  beautiful  locust  ( Schistocerca  venn^ta)  is  a larger  spe- 


ORASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


I 


cies  than  the  above,  and  of  graceful  build.  Its  color 
Is  olive  green,  a white  median  stripe  down  the  middle  of  the 
back,  and  with  dark  red  tibia. 

The  buffalo  locust  ( Brachystola  magna)  is  large,  clumsily 
built,  in  color  usually  a tan  brown,  and  has  only  very  short 
rudimentary  wings.  It  is  not  often  reported  as  injurious,  but 
occasions  inquiry  on  account  of  its  remarkable  size  and  ap^- 
pearance. 


DISTRIBUTION 

The  differential  locust  has  likely  the  widest  distribution 
over  the  State,  being  found  nearly  always  wherever  farming 
operations  are  carried  on,  excepting  in  high  altitudes.  Its 
closest  rival  is  the  lesser  locust.  The  two  are  apt  to  be  found 
associated.  Along  with  these  the  red-legged  locust  usually 
occurs,  in  larger  or  smaller  numbers.  The  two-striped  locust 
is  found  from  Las  Vegas  southward  into  the  Pecos  Valley 
and  south  from  there  to  the  State  line.  It  seems  not  to  be 
found  in  the  western  part  of  the  State.  The  buffalo  locust 
is  widely  distributed  at  moderately  high  altitudes.  This  last 
season,  1915,  the  beautiful  and  the  three-striped  locusts  were 
reported  injurious  with  others  in  the  Carlsbad  region,  the 
first  reports  of  damage  by  them. 


The 


LIFE  HISTORY  AND  HABITS 
Eggs  and  Egg  Laying 

of  the  grasshopper  are  yellowish  in  color,  longer 
than  thick,  curved  and  slightly 
tapering  at  ends.  For  the  larger 
species  the  eggs  are  about  1-8 
inch  long.  In  later  summer  and 
fall,  when  the  females  come 
to  maturity,  they  lay  the  eggs 
that  are  to  produce  the  one  generation  each  year.  To  deposit 
the  eggs  the  female  selects  first  a suitable  place — one  that  has 


Fig.  3. — a.  Eggs  of  differen- 
tial locust,  enlarged;  b.  brok- 
en egg  “pod”,  showing  eggs 
at  end.  (Original.) 


10 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


firm  soil,  neither  too  loose  nor  too  hard,  well  drained,  with 
not  too  many  fine  roots,  but  usually  with  coarser  roots  that 
tend  to  make  the  operation  easier. 


Fig.  4. — Weedy  borders  and  edges  of  field.  Breeding  and  roosting 
places  for  grasshoppers.  (Original.) 


Fig.  5. — Sunflowers,  Russian  thistles  and  other  weeds  on  field  ditcn 
bank.  Breeding  and  roosting  places  for  hoppers.  (Original.) 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


11 


Ideal  places  are  found  in  waste  ground  bordering  fields,  fence 
rows,  roadsides,  ditch  banks,  borders,  fallow  land,  and  weed 
patches.  Fields  that  are  cultivated  are  not  sought  for  egg  lay- 
ing, nor  are  places  that  are  too  hot  and  moist.  For  the 
latter  reason  eggs  are  not  usually  found  mid-field  in  alfalfa. 
Some  protection  from  sun  is  usually  sought.  Wet  and  cold 
retard  egg  laying. 

A spot  selected,  the  female  places  the  four  horny  processes 
on  the  tip  of  the  abdomen  to  the  ground  and  by  alternate 
opening  and  closing  of  these  and  downward  pushing  a hole 
is  dug  in  the  soil  as  deep  as  the  extended  abdomen  allows. 
(Fig.  6.) 


Fig.  6. — Female  differential  locust  laying  eggs.  Somewhat  enlarged. 
{Author’s  drawing  from  Fig.  5 (Photograph)  U.  S.  D.  A.  Far.  Bui.  697.) 

In  this  hole  the  eggs  are  laid  one  at  a time,  the  abdomen 
being  gradually  withdrawn  to  make  room  as  the  laying  pro- 
ceeds. As  a protection  to  the  eggs  against  wetting  and  dry- 
ing, a mucilaginous  liquid  is  secreted  with  the  eggs  which  cov- 
ers the  eggs,  fills  in  between  them  and  finally  fills  the  mouth 
of  the  hole,  when  dry,  making  of  the  egg  mass  a roughly 
cylindrical  curved  “pod”.  (Fig.  3.) 


12 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


The  depth  at  which  the  eggs  are  found  varies  from  1 to 
2 inches.  Very  generally  2 “pods”  are  laid  each  year  by  each 
female.  The  number  of  eggs  in  each  “pod”  varies  with  the 
species.  The  red-legged  locust  lays  from  20  to  30  eggs  in 
each  “pod”,  the  number  in  the  second  being  usually  less  than 
the  first.  The  lesser  locust  lays  about  the  same.  The  differ- 
ential locust  lays  from  80  to  90  eggs  in  the  first  “pod”.  The 
number  has  been  recorded  by  some  as  high  as  100.  The  sec- 
ond “pod”  varies  from  40  to  75. 


THE  YOUNG  AND  THEIR  DEVELOPMENT 

The  time  of  appearance  of  the  young  in  spring  varies  with 
the  season,  species  and  region.  On  first  hatching  they  are  very 
pale  in  color,  but  soon  take  on  colors  that  resemble  their  sur- 
roundings. This,  together  with  the  small  size,  1-8  inch  to 
3-16  inch,  renders  the  young  hoppers  very  inconspicuous,  so 
many  of  them  may  be  present  and  escape  the  notice  of  the 
casual  observer  until  they  grow  considerably  larger.  Then 
one  wonders  where  they  all  came  from  so  suddenly. 

Increase  in  size  is  accomplished  through  a series  of  molts, 
a crack  appearing  near  the  neck  and  the  outside  covering  of 
the  body  being  cast  off.  After  each  molt  the  skin  is  soft  and 
somewhat  elastic,  but  soon  toughens  to  protect  the  individual 
until  the  next  time  for  shedding.  The  young  have  only 
indications  of  wings,  “pads”,  until  after  the  fifth  and  last 
molt  when  most  species  gain  the  fully  formed  wings.  Some 
species,  the  buffalo  locust  for  instance,  never  gain  more  than 
the  “pads”. 

In  the  Mesilla  Valley  the  lesser  locust  and  the  red-legged 
hatch  between  the  15th  and  25th  of  April  and  adults  begin 
to  come  out  after  the  first  week  in  June.  The  differtial  locust 
hatches  about  a month  later,  adults  appearing  about  July  1st. 

Laboratory  rearings  of  the  lesser  locust,  taken  just  on 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL  U 

hatching  out  of  doors,  gave  the  average  time  for  development 
as  follows:  From  hatching  to  first  molt  11  days;  to  second 
molt  13  days;  to  third  molt  6 days;  to  fourth  molt  6 days;  to 
fifth  molt,  appearance  of  adult,  6 days;  the  total  time  being  42 
days. 

There  seems  to  be  considerable  variation  in  the  time  re- 
quired for  development  as  young  in  various  later  stages  up 
to  last  may  be  noted  for  four  weeks  after  the  first  adults 
are  seen. 

For  one  or  two  days  after  hatching  the  young  remain 
grouped  near  where  they  issued  before  going  to  feed.  On  cold 
wet  days  they  stay  quiet  in  such  dry  places  as  they  may  find. 
Warm  sunny  days  bring  them  out  to  feed.  Cold  rains  at 
hatching  time  or  soon  after  are  very  disastrous  to  the  young. 

Damage  by  hoppers  begins  as  soon  as  the  young  begin  to 
feed. 


ADULTS 

Copulation  begins  a week  or  ten  days  after  maturity  is 
reached;  the  first  eggs  being  laid  after  as  many  more  days 
The  period  intervening  between  the  deposition  of  the  two 
“pods”  is  variable.  The  approach  of  cold  weather  restricts 
activity  and  the  adults  die  later  in  the  season,  none  hibernating. 

Wet  weather  in  summer  checks  activities.  Rain  following 
continued  dry  weather  is  apt  to  be  followed  by  Increased  activ- 
ity, especially  in  egg  laying. 

The  feeing  habits  of  the  adults  are  so  well  known  that  dis- 
cussion is  made  only  of  important  points.  Succulent  vegeta- 
tion is  sought  so  food  and  water  may  both  be  obtained  at  once 
Water  is  also  drunk  outright  if  opportunity  offers.  In  the 
insectary  field  hoppers  may  be  observed  to  drink  liber- 
ally or  to  eat  of  materials  that  are  moist  in  preference  to  more 
dry  food. 

Coarse  rank  vegetation  bordering  feeding  grounds  is  used 
as  shelter  in  day  time  from  sun  and  from  bird  enemies  and 


14 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


at  night  as  roosting  places.  As  a rule  there  is  a migration  out 
from  such  places  in  the  morning,  after  the  sun  is  up,  to  feed; 
a return  in  the  heat  of  the  day;  a second  outward  migration 
in  evening,  and  a return  to  roost  about  sundown. 

If  the  food  supply  in  a given  local  area  is  exhausted,  or  is 
removed,  as  in  case  of  mowing  alfalfa,  there  may  be  short, 
local  migrations  to  new  food  supply.  Progress  during  such 
migrations  is  gradual,  by  crawling,  short  jumps  or  short 
flights. 


NATURAL  ENEMIES  AND  NATURAL  CONTROL 

The  natural  enemies  of  grasshoppers  can  not  be  depended 
upon  to  control  them  in  all  cases  because  these  enemies  are 
subject  to  conditions  varying  from  very  favorable  to  decidedly 
unfavorable.  In  the  latter  case  the  grasshoppers  would  out- 
run the  increase  of  natural  enemies  and  a critical  infestation 
be  precipitated.  This  accounts  for  the  periodicity  of  injuri- 
ous infestations  in  given  localities  where  no  preventive  or  rem- 
edial measures  are  employed. 

The  following  discussion  will  make  possible  a.  better  utiliz- 
ation of  natural  factors  in  control  along  with  artificial  meas- 
ures. 

DISEASES 

A fungus  disease  attacking  grasshoppers  kills  quantities  of 
them  yearly.  As  the  disease  develops,  the  hoppers  become 
sluggish  and  crawl  to  the  top  of  vegetation  and  cling  there 
tightly  by  the  legs  until  dead.  (Fig. 7.) 

Hot  moist  weather  favors  the  growth  and  spread  of  the  dis- 
ease. Such  factors  can  not  be  controlled  by  man,  so  if  the 
conditions  are  right  the  disease  operates  without  man’s  aid, 
if  not  it  can  not  be  assisted.  Experimentation  with  the  South 
African  fungus,  also,  has  so  far  been  unsuccessful  in  the 
main. 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


U 


Fig.  7. — Grasshoppers  that  have  been  killed  by  the  fungus,  clinging 
to  various  kinds  of  vegetation.  (Original.) 

ENEMIES  OF  THE  ADULTS  AND  YOUNG 

Birds  are  of  most  benefit  in  the  destruction  of  grasshoppers. 
There  are  very  few  species  that  do  not  include  grasshoppers 
in  their  summer  diet.  Most  species  of  hawks,  even,  consume 
quantities.  Quails,  meadow  larks,  and  blackbirds  probably 
lead  in  the  destruction.  The  much  hated  road-runner  gulps 


16 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


down  huge  numbers  daily.  In  all,  over  a hundred  species  of 
birds  are  prominent  as  feeding  on  hoppers.  In  the  Mesilla 
Valley,  fields  near  breeding  grounds  of  the  blackbirds  are 
free  from  grasshopper  damage.  Domestic  poultry  are  fond 
of  such  food.  Skunks  eat  masses  of  the  hoppers. 

The  young  of  certain  red  mites  may  be  found  in  numbers 
on  the  wings  of  adults  and  young.  The  young  of  course  shed 
the  skin  and  mites  with  them.  Very  little  injury  is  done  the 
adults  by  these  mites  for  active,  healthy  individuals  may  carry 
from  one  to  two  hundred  of  the  parasites  and  seem  to  suffer  no 
inconvenience.  The  very  young  may  be  killed  but  the  mites 
do  not  become  very  plentiful  early  in  the  season. 

Certain  grayish,  hairy  flies  deposit  maggots  on  the  bodies 
of  the  hoppers.  These  tiny  maggots  go  into  the  inside  of  the 
hopper,  grow  to  maturity  there,  feeding  on  the  tissue  of  the 
host’s  body.  When  grown  they  come  out  and  go  into  the 
ground  to  transform  to  the  adult.  In  1913  in  the  lower  Mes- 
slla  Valley  these  flies  killed  swarms  of  hoppers.  Unfortun- 
ately, accident  destroyed  collected  specimens  before  they  could 
be  identified  as  to  species. 

Various  predaceous  ground  inhabiting  beetles  eat  consider- 
able numbers  of  the  newly  hatched  young. 

ENEMIES  OF  THE  EGGS 

The  adults  of  the  mites  mentioned  above  destroy  large 
quantities  of  the  eggs  in  the  ground.  Larvae  and  adults  of 
blister  beetles  (Fig.  2)  are  even  more  beneficial  in  this  respect. 
The  larvae  of  the  bee-flies  also  infest  the  “pods”.  Several  birds 
eat  the  “pods”,  especially  when  stirred  out  by  harrowing. 
Skunks  and  mice  dig  out  many  eggs  for  food. 

CROPS  ATTACKED 

As  a group  the  grasshoppers  listed  in  this  bulletin  as  injur- 
ious are  very  general  feeders  if  necessary.  In  the  irrigated 
sections  alfalfa  affords  the  ideal  food,  early,  succulent,  plenti- 


Cx  R A S S H O P P E R CONTROL 


IT 


ful,  and  undisturbed  except  for  periodic  mowings.  Annual 
crops  or  those  cultivated  annually  suffer  less,  except  when  the 
stable  food  supply  of  any  region  is  short.  Small  grains  may 
suffer  if  not  too  near  ripe;  corn  when  young  is  often  attacked, 
but  rarely  so  when  the  stalks  attain  large  size.  A field  of 
corn  may  even  act  as  a barrier  to  grasshopper  advance,  or 
edges  of  the  field  may  he  used  as  roosting  places  only. 

Gardens  and  truck  crops  suffer  greatly  when  infested  be- 
cause of  the  succulent  nature  of  the  food. 

Smaller  sized  fruit  trees  may  be  injured  severely,  or  killed 
by  having  the  leaves  stripped  off,  (Fig.  8)  tender  twigs  eaten 
and  bark  gnawed. 


Fig.  8—  Young  orchard  stripped  by  grasshoppers. 


Damage  to  young  orchards  usually  follows  the  cutting  of 
alfalfa  or  some  staple  food  supply  from  the  orchard  itself  or 
from  adjacent  fields.  The  hoppers  then  congregate  in  the 
trees  with  above  results. 


18 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


CONTROL  MEASURES 

For  control  measures  to  be  directed  to  best  advantage  it 
is  necessaray  to  have  knowledge  of  the  points  brought  out  in 
the  previous  discussion.  For  control  measures  to  be  effective 
and  certain  they  must  be  correctly  applied  by  each  farmer  as 
his  especial  business;  to  make  the  results  uniform,  control 
measures  should  be  applied  by  the  community  as  a whole. 

Over  large  areas,  where  the  return  per  acre  from  crops  is 
small,  control  measures  must  be  economical  to  be  practical. 
The  more  they  may  be  made  to  fit  into  correct  farm  practice 
the  more  sure  they  are  of  efficient  results — both  financially 
and  in  practice.  The  following  measures  take  both  these 
phases  of  control  into  account. 

Control  of  grasshoppers  is  discussed  along  two  lines : Pre- 
ventive and  Remedial. 

PREVENTIVE 

Outbreaks  may  be  prevented  almost  entirely  by  attention 
to  prohibition  of  egg  deposition  and  to  destruction  of  eggs 
before  they  hatch.  The  first  may  be  brought  about  in  con- 
nection with  remedial  measures  to  be  discussed  later,  by  keep- 
ing such  places  described  above  as  the  haunts  of  the  hoppers 
free  from  sheltering  weeds.  Keeping  down  weeds  along  ditch 
banks,  field  edges,  borders,  roadsides,  where  hoppers  congre- 
gate, exposes  the  insects  more  to  their  natural  enemies  and 
they  will  abandon  the  places.  There  is  also  almost  as  much 
benefit  directly  in  such  destruction  in  freeing  the  fields  of 
weeds.  It  is  good  farming  practice  merely. 

Burning  neglected  weed  patches  may  kill  some  egg  pods  and 
if  burned  when  the  hoppers  are  very  small  will  kill  many  hop- 
pers. So,  burning  should  not  be  done  until  the  hoppers  hatch 
if  possible.  It  is  safer  on  two  counts,  however,  to  keep  the 
weeds  down  in  summer. 

Destruction  of  the  eggs  may  be  accomplished  by  plowing, 
harrowing,  or  disking.  This  may  be  simplified  by  noting  in 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


19 


the  fall  where  most  of  the  eggs  are  being  laid  and  treating 
such  places  particularly.  Any  of  these  above  operations  should 
be  performed  before  the  eggs  hatch,  of  course,  preferably 
in  cold  weather.  Plowing  should  be  deep  enough — eight 
inches — to  bury  the  eggs  sufficiently  to  prohibit  the  young 
hoppers  from  coming  to  the  surface  when  they  hatch. 

Where  plowing  cannot  be  done,  harrowing  or  disking  to 
a depth  of  2 inches, — thoroughly  done, — stirs  up  the  “pods”; 
breaks  many,  allows  the  birds  and  other  enemies  a better 
chance  at  them  and  exposes  them  to  fatal  changes  in  temper- 
ature and  moisture.  A combination  of  these  two  is  effective. 
Disk  first  and  after  two  weeks  harrow  where  disked.  These 
operations  are  carried  on  at  small  expense  at  a time  of  year 
when  more  time  may  more  easily  be  devoted  to  them  than  can 
be  given  profitably  in  summer  to  remedial  measures.  There 
is  a large  saving,  also,  in  the  amount  of  crops  saved  from  de- 
struction. The  discussion  of  egg  laying  showed  the  number 
of  eggs  to  be  somewhere  near  one  hundred  per  female  per 
season.  How  easy  to  kill  fifty  grasshoppers  by  destroying  one 
pod ! How  easy  by  the  same  means  to  prevent  a possible  2500 
eggs  the  next  fall,  allowing  one-half  for  males  and  one-half 
for  females  in  each  fifty!  It  is  easily  observable  that  fields 
treated  as  above  are  free  of  hoppers  in  damaging  numbers. 

Where  land  is  left  fallow  for  a long  time,  or  where  consid- 
erable extent  of  land,  affording  breeding  places,  is  held  un- 
farmed by  landowners,  there  should  be  some  means  of  compel- 
ling the  employment  of  measures  to  lessen  the  danger 
from  such  infection  spots  to  adjacent  farmed  tracts. 

REMEDIAL 

If  the  foregoing  measures  have  not  been  employed  thor- 
oughly the  following  means,  carefully  employed,  will  make 
the  control  of  critical  outbreaks  possible. 


20 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


MACHINES  FOR  CAPTURING  YOUNG  AND  ADULTS 
Hopperdozer. 

The  hopperdozer  has  bren  in  use  for  years  in  the  Central 
States.  In  1913  the  h pperdozer  (Fig.  9.)  was  used 


Pig.  9. — Hopperdozer,  backstop  removed.  Note  the  partitions  in  the 
pan  and  lip  in  front.  (Original.) 

to  free  alfalfa  in  a young  orchard  of  hoppers.  Several  bush- 
els were  caught  in  a two-hour  run  at  first  trial.  The  hoppers 
were  grown  and  had  already  done  severe  injury  to  the  young 
trees  but  later  damage  was  stopped.  After  using  the  hopper- 
dozer direct lv  on  the  alfalfa  that  was  nearly  ready  to  cut,  the 
hay  was  cut,  the  mower  being  followed  by  the  hopperdozer,. 
In  this  wav  the  field  was  cleared. 


Fig.  10. — Hopperdozer  in  use. 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


2L 


Fig.  11. — Removing  hoppers  from  pan. 

The  hopperdozer  consists  of  a galvanized  iron  pan  mount- 
ed on  runners  and  having  a back  stop  of  canvas  or  oil  cloth. 
The  pan  figured  is  12  feet  long  by  2 feet  wide  by  4 inches- 
deep.  The  back  and  ends  have  a 2-inch  flange,  the  front  a 
6-inch  flange.  The  pan  is  supported  by  a 2x4  on  either  side 
set  into  the  end  of  the  runners  which  are  2 in.  x 8 in.  x 4 ft. 
The  flanges  are  nailed  to  the  wooden  frame  thus  made.  A 
low  runner  supports  the  bottom  in  the  middle.  The  hitch  is 


Fis.  12  — Hopper  machine  in  use. 


22 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


made  directly  to  the  runners.  A back  stop  30  inches  high,  with 
triangular  pieces  for  the  ends,  made  of  canvas  nailed  on  a 
frame,  is  held  in  position  by  allowing  cross  pieces  of  the  frame 
to  fit  into  bow  irons  on  back  of  pan  frame.  The  back  stop 
may  thus  be  removed  for  better  protection  when  not  in  use. 

The  partitions  are  inserted,  without  fastening,  to  reduce 
slopping. 

In  use  (Fig.  10)  the  pan  should  have  about  2 inches  of 
water  with  a film  of  coal  oil  on  top.  When  the  hoppers  caught 
reduce  the  working  efficiency,  remove  them  with  a scoop,  al- 
lowing the  oil  and  water  to  strain  back.  (Fig.  11).  Replenish 
with  water  and  oil  when  necessary. 

Better  results  will  be  had  if  the  hopperdozer  is  used  before 
the  hoppers  have  attained  their  wings  and  where  vegetation 
is  only  about  eight  inches  or  less  high.  Winged  hoppers  are 
not  so  easily  caught,  and  they  have  already  done  much  damage*, 
scattered  wider  and  thus  greater  expense  is  involved  in  their 
capture.  Once  over  with  this  mach'ne,  as  with  the  two  types 
following,  is  rarely  sufficient  if  hoppers  are  very  numerous. 

Mr.  J.  W.  Rigney,  County  Agriculturist  of  Chaves  County, 
reported  catching,  with  a hopperdozer  similar  to  the  above, 
but  only  10  feet  long,  “Six  bushels  of  hoppers  during  the  last 
half  of  the  forenoon. ” The  farmer  using  this  machine  re- 
ported to  him  later  “that  he  had  caught  60  bushels  off  71-2 
acres.”  Mr.  Rigney  reported  that  at  another  trial  in  less  than 
two  hours  one  machine  collected  eight  bushels.  This  machine 
was  15  feet  long,  made  with  two  pans  20  inches  wide  set  on 
floors  of  1-inch  material  allowing  some  play  where  the  inside 
ends  came  together,  a good  modificatiion  for  rough  land,  es- 
pecially, when  the  machine  is  long.  Some  twenty  hopper- 
dozers  were  put  in  operation  in  his  County  in  1915. 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


2$ 


The  cost  will  vary  from  $6.00  to  $10.00. 

The  cost  for  oil  to  run  will  vary  from  $.50  to  $1.50  a day. 
Another  type  of  hopperdozer  (Fig.  13)  was  designed  by 

the  author  to  be  used 
where  the  ground  was 
rough  and  where  the 
use  of  a shallow  pan 
would  not  be  so  prac- 
tical. The  pan  was  9 
inches  deep,  12  inches 
wide  at  the  bottom,  and 
8 inches  at  the  top.  At 
the  upper  front  edge 
was  a 20-inch  lip  slant- 
ing downward  to  serve 
as  a threshold  to  the 
pan.  Having  the  sides 
slant  inward  from  bot- 
tom to  top  prevented 
slopping  when  the  pan 
ground.  The  cut  will  show  the  plan  of 


Fig.  13. — Type  of  hopperdozer  designed 
for  use  on  rough  land,  a and  b,  timbers 
supporting  the  pan,  p,  I,  lip,  resting  on 
cleat,  c.  Scale,  1-10  inch  equals  2 inches. 
(Original.) 


was  in  use  on  rough 
construction. 


Fig.  14. — Hopper  machine,  front  view.  Note  curved  metal 
shield  in  front 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


34 


Fig.  15. — Back  view  of  machine  in  Fig.  14. 


After  the  oil  has  evaporated  the  hoppers  caught  in  the  hop- 
perdozer  are  good  feed  for  pigs  or  poultry.  To  > many  should 
:not  be  fed  at  once,  of  course. 

THE  HOPPER  MACHINE 

The  hopper  machine  (Figs.  14  and  15)  makes  possible  the 


Fig.  16. — Close  view  of  machine  in  Fig.  15,  showing  hoppers 
clinging  to  screen  back. 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


25 


capture  of  the  hoppers  alive,  on  sloping  ground  and  without 

the  use  of  any  oil.  This  type 
of  machine  wars  used  in  Colo- 
rado in  1902.  It  consists  es- 
sentially of  a box  of  length  to 
suit  the  needs — 12  to  16  feet, 
square  or  rectangular  in  cross 
section,  2x2  feet  or  2 x 1 
feet.  The  back  and  top  may 
be  entirely  or  partly  of  screen 
wire,  provision  being  made 
somewhere  for  getting  the  hop- 

, pers  out.  The  front  is  a curved 
Fig.  17. — Diagram  of  end  of  hop-  ' t 

per  macnine,  showing  curved  shield  _ 1-2  feet  high,  of 

shield,  t;  lip,  I,  and  space  below  smooth  metal  or  oil  cloth,  ex- 
the  edge  of  shield  for  entrance  . . e 

of  hoppers.  (Original.)  tending  to  within  2 inches  of 

the  bottom  of  the  box.  The 
box  is  prolonged  (Fig.  17)  3 inches  in  front  of  the  bottom  of 
the  shield,  a lip  projecting  upward  there  and  forming  the 
remainder  of  the  front  of  box.  The  box  is  set  on  runners 
2 inches  by  4 inches  by  4 feet.  The  hitch  is  made  to  ends  of 
a 2x4  running  in  front  of  the  lip  and  extending  across  the 
ends  of  the  box. 

In  operation  (Fig.  12)  the  hoopers  jump  up,  hit  the  curved 
shield  and  toboggan  down  into  the  space  between  the  lip  and 
lower  edge  of  shield.  Here  they  see  room  and  light  in  back 
of  box  (Fig.  16)  so  crawl  and  jump  for  that  space.  A few 
may  jump  out  over  the  lip  instead.  The  Utah  Experiment 
Station  (Bui.  138)  makes  the  lip  of  curved  metal  so  as  to 
form  a second  minor,  toboggan  that  shoots  the  hoppers  auto- 
matically past  the  lower  edge  of  shield  into  the  box  behind. 

In  1913  Mr.  P.  H.  Bailey,  in  the  lower  Mesilla  Valley,  made 
and  operated  a machine  of  this  type  with  the  rectangular  box 
2 feet  wide.  1 foot  deep  and  16  feet  long.  The  catch  with  it 
was  enormous,  the  pile  of  stacked  grasshoppers  being  a huge 


26 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


testimony  to  the  efficiency  of  the  machine.  In  order  to  unload 
the  catch  a wooden  piston  was  made  with  a head  to  fit  loosely 
in  the  box  and  rod  to  reach  the  opposite  end.  The  piston  was 
shoved  into  the  box  when  the  machine  was  in  operation.  ‘ The 
machine  full,  it  was  hoisted  on  to  two  3-foot  trestles.  A sack 
was  then  held  at  the  end  with  the  removable  door  and  the 
door  opened.  The  plunger  was  pulled  out  far  enough  to  bring 
with  it  hoppers  to  fill  the  sack.  It  was  then  pushed  in,  door 
closed,  first  sack  removed  and  another  put  in  position  and  the 
operation  repeated.  The  space  between  the  lip  and  shield  was 
stuffed  with  sacks  to  prevent  hoppers  from  crawling  out  there. 

If  the  hoppers  are  not  to  be  sacked,  an  easy  way  to  unload 
is  to  deposit  them  in  a sufficiently  large  pit  in  the  ground. 
They  may  be  killed  with  a very  little  sprinkling  of  kerosene. 


Fig.  18. — Pile  of  dead  hoppers  captured  by  hopper  machine. 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL  27 

In  1915  Mr.  J.  AM.  Knorr,  Agriculturist  of  Eddy  County, 
reported  excellent  success  with  machines  built  after  the  Utah 
plans.  (Utah  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  138.)  Figure  18  bears  witness. 

The  cost  of  one  of  the  above  machines  varies  with  size 
from  $8.00  to  $15.00.  The  operating  expense  is  nothing  ex- 
tra as  in  case  of  the  hopperdozer  where  oil  must  be  supplied 
and  extra  water  as  well.  The  trouble  of  getting  the  hoppers 
out  is  a little  more  in  the  case  of  the  dry  machine.  On  the 
whole  the  principal  advantage  of  the  latter  type  over  the  for- 
mer is  in  the  possibility  of  its  use  over  rougher,  sloping 
ground. 

If  either  kind  of  machine  is  built  it  should  be  well  made 
in  the  first  place  and  then  preserved  for  use  in  succeeding 
years.  It  will  then  always  be  ready  to  meet  crises  that  may 
come,  due  usually,  to  lack  of  attention  to  the  preventive  meas- 
ures. 


POISONING 

Poisoning  may  be  effected  by  applying  the  poison  directly 
to  the  hoppers  by  a contact  spray,  to  the  vegetation,  by  a 
stomach  spray,  or  by  distribution  of  poisoned  bait. 

Oftentimes  there  are  conditions  where  it  is  possible  to  kill 
enormous  quantities  of  young,  or  sometimes  adults  as  well 
by  spraying  with  kerosene.  If  hoppers  are  found  on  areas 
of  vegetation  that  may  be  killed  without  loss,  then  the  ap- 
plication of  a spray  of  kerosene  or  strong  kerosene  emulsion 
will  quickly  and  effectively  clear  such  areas.  Weed  patches, 
ditch  banks,  etc.,  could  be  well  treated  thus. 

Poisoning  the  vegetation  is  often  practicable  for  killing 
young  when  they  are  still  localized.  Arsenate  of  lead  at  the 
rate  of  3 lbs.  powder  to  50  gallons  water  is  a good  spray  to  use. 
This  strength  may  injure  some  foliage  but  a less  strength  is 
apt  not  to  be  effective.  It  is  not  advisable  to  spray  a forage 
crop  when  about  ready  to  cut.  Adults  are  apt  to  leave  poi- 
soned vegetation  and  go  to  food  not  poisoned.  They  are  also 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


more  resistant  to  the  poison  and  if  numerous  will  do  permanent 
injury  to  crop  before  enough  are  killed.  Spraying  young 
fruit  trees  is  usually  time  lost  as  there  is  so  little  foliage  that 
all  will  be  eaten  in  spite  of  poison. 

To  get  the  young,  spray  considerable  areas  adjacent  to 
the  masses  of  hoppers.  They  will  then  eat  of  the  poison. 

The  means  of  poisoning  by  distributing  poisoned  bait  is  of 
wide  application  and  ranks  with  the  bopperdozer  and  machine 
as  a remedial  measure. 

The  old  Criddle  Mixture — horse  droppings,  salt,  Paris 
green  and  water — was  modified  by  the  writer  in  1915  as  fol- 
lows and  with  good  effect: 

Three  small  lemons  were  grated  into  1 gallon  of  water  and 
to  this  1-2  lb.  of  Paris  green  and  3-4  lb.  salt  were  added. 
This  was  stirred  up  thoroughly  and  added  at  once  to  2 pails 
of  horse  droppings,  half  fresh  and  half  partly  dried.  The 
mass  was  stirred  up  well  and  left  over  night. 

Before  sunrise  it  was  placed  in  teaspoonful  heaps  near  the 
roosting  places  of  the  hoppers.  The  results  were  quite  sat- 
isfactory. A gentle  shower  came  a few  days  after  the  appli- 
cation and  moistened  the  bait,  increasing  the  effectiveness. 
This  was  tried  in  1912  without  the  fruit,  as  a protectioin  to 
a cabbage  patch,  being  distributed  through  the  patch  in  heaps 
the  size  of  one’s  fist.  The  piles  were  moistened  daily.  Dead 
hoppers  accumulated  in  masses  near  the  piles  in  a few  days. 
Then  came  several  showers  in  sultry  weather  and  the  grass- 
hopper fungus  practically  cleared  the  field. 

Kansas  in  the  last  few  years  has  improved  the  old  Bran 
Mash  by  adding  grated  oranges  or  lemons  and  syrup  or  mo- 
lesses.  Their  formula  and  modifications  have  given  remark- 
able results  in  many  sections  of  the  country.  The  writer 
used  the  following  formula : 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


29 


Wheat  bran 

Paris  Green 

Eemons 

Sorghum  molasses 
Water  


. . . 20  pounds 

1 pound 

6 or  8 fruits 
....  3 quarts 
3 1-2  gallons 


The  bran  and  Paris  green  were  mixed  dry  in  small  amounts 
in  a big  galvanized  iron  wash  tub,  these  being  transferred  to  a 
second  tub  when  the  mixture  was  complete.  For  large  quan- 
tities some  mechanical  mixer  would  be  necessaary  to, hasten 
the  process  and  to  protect  the  workers  from  the  dust  from  the 
Paris  green. 

After  the  fruits  were  grated  into  the  water  the  molasses 
was  stirred  in  and  the  resulting  mixture  stirred  thoroughly 
into  the  bran  so  that  every  part  was  wet.  This  was  allowed  to 
stand  twenty- four  hours  to  start  fermentation. 

This  mash  was  sown  broadcast  in  early  morning,  before  the 
hoppers  started  to  feed,  where  they  were  roosting  and  in 
fields  where  injury  from  feeding  was  noted.  Results  were 
excellent,  masses  of  hoppers  being  killed  at  each  application. 
Even  the  dried  mash  was  eaten.  Whole  local  swarms  were 
cleared  from  the  fields  where  trials  were  made. 

One  trial  failed.  The  application  was  made  in  early  morn- 
ing just  after  a light  shower  the  preceding  night.  Food  was 
plentiful  and  hoppers  were  not  present  in  injurious  numbers. 
Only  two  dead  hoppers  were  found  at  any  time,  even  tho  the 
bait  stayed  moist  several  days  in  protected  places. 

Substitution  of  alfalfa  meal  for  bran  has  been  tried  by  some 
experimenters  with  fair  success. 

County  Agriculturists  J.  W.  Rigney  and  J.  W.  Knorr  of 
Chaves  and  Eddy  Counties  respectively,  reported  excellent 
results  with  the  bran  mixture  where  used.  (Fig.  19). 

Note.  Experimentation  has  shown  there  is  no  danger  to  poul- 
try from  eating  the  bran  mash  if  it  is  scattered  broadcast. 
The  writer  has  seen  no  dead  wild  birds  over  ground  that 


30 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


was  treated.  One  season  a pan  of  the  prepared  bran  mash 
was  exposed  where  chickens  could  get  it  if  they  wished.  Only 
occasionally  would  one  peck  at  the  bran  and  then  only  de- 
sultorily. None  showed  any  signs  of  poisoning. 

Reports  have  come  to  the  writer  of  chickens  dying  from 
eating  grasshoppers,  both  alive  and  poisoned.  Such  deaths  were 
evidently  due  to  overeating  of  a food  to  which  the  fowls  were 
not  accustomed. 


Pig.  19. — Orchard  separated  from  alfalfa  field  by  salt  cedar  hedge. 
This  orchard  was  protected  from  ruin  in  1915  by  the  use  of  the  fruit- 
bran-mash  along  and  on  this  hedge. 

US'E  OF  POULTRY 

Chickens  and  turkeys  as  a factor  in  grasshopper  control 
rightly  come  under  the  head  “Preventive”.  They  are  ex- 
ceedingly effective  yearly  over  smaller  areas  by  eating  great 
quantities  of  young  especially.  However,  their  possibilities 
should  not  be  overestimated.  It  is  impossible  to  raise  suffi- 
cient poultry  to  patrol  all  the  land  in  New  Mexico  subject 
to  grasshopper  damages.  During  the  years  when  hoppers 
are  scarce  they  will  be  kept  down  but  there  is  bound  to  come 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


31 


a crisis  when  the  poultry  present  will  be  unable  to  cope  with 
them.  The  writer  has  seen  alfalfa  eaten  short  by  the  hop- 
pers in  the  face  of  large  flocks  of  poultry. 

The  most  benefit  may  be  derived  from  the  poultry  by  keep- 
ing them  shut  in  an  enclosure,  portable  if  necessary,  and  then 
herding  them  to  feed  for  a time  daily  on  infested  ground. 
They  will  thus  eat  more  exclusively  of  them. 

Poultry  are  very  good  as  far  as  they  go,  in  control  work 
but  can  not  be  relied  upon  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other  means. 

DRIVING 

Driving  as  a temporary  relief  from  invasion  by  hoppers 
may  be  employed  in  such  places  as  gardens,  small  orchards, 
or  small  plats  of  various  sorts  where  vegetation  is  not  too 
dense.  The  writer  has  seen  such  places  cleared  in  short  time 
and  imminent  danger  averted  until  more  final  measures  could 
be  employed.  To  drive  grasshoppers  one  must  proceed  slowly, 
as  they  tire  easily  and  then  drop  to  the  ground  and  hide  instead 
of  moving  on.  It  is  best,  thus,  to  beat  back  and  forth  with 
leafy  branches  in  the  rear  of  the  swarm  at  right  angles  to 
the  line  of  advance,  giving  part  resting  time  while  another 
part  is  moving.  Just  after  the  beginning  of  the  morning  feed- 
ing time  is  best  for  driving. 

PROTECTION  OF  YOUNG  ORCHARDS 

In  many  places  it  is  a common  practice  to  grow  crops  in  be- 
tween rows  of  young  trees.  If  alfalfa  is  grown  there,  trouble 
is  almost  sure  to  follow  from  grasshoppers  unless  precau- 
tions are  taken.  Trouble  is  not  so  great,  usually,  from  crops 
that  are  rotated  annually  or  oftener. 

All  preventive  means  should  be  employed  yearly  of  course. 
If  the  numbers  of  young  seem  then  to  indicate  later  damage, 
use  the  poisoned  bran  and  hopperdozer  or  hopper  machine 
after  the  first  and  second  cutting  of  the  alfalfa.  This  should 
clear  the  orchard  before  the  majority  become  adult  and  cap- 
able of  serious  damage.  If  hoppers  are  bad  in  adjacent  fields 


GRASSHOPPER  CONTROL 


n 

— and  this  caution  applies  to  any  case — do  not  cut  the  field 
clear,  or  the  hoppers  will  migrate  to  the  orchard  or  next  field 
and  pc'!- hups  do  greater  injury.  When  cutting  leave  a strip 
of  feed  for  them  where  they  are  most  numerous  and  as  soon 
as  possible  use  remedial  measures  thai  are  most  applicable  to 
kill  them. 

Spraying-  young  trees  is  ineffective  because  there  are  enough 
hoppers  to  eat  all  the  foliage  even  if  some  are  killed.  Covering 
with  mosquito  netting  is  too  expensive.  This  is  also  too  light 
in  weight,  as  holes  are  frequently  eaten  through  it.  Un- 
bleached cheesecloth  is  cheaper  and  better,  but  of  course  small 
tiees  are  the  only  ones  that  it  is  practical  to  cover  with  cloth. 
In  case  of  an  invasion  by  adults  from  without,  drive  them 
out  at  once  to  prevent  immediate  damage.  Then  apply  rem- 
edial measures. 


Note. — Control  will  be  most  effective  in  any  case  when  based  on  a 
full  general  knowledge  of  grasshoppers;  on  accurate  observations  of 
the  given,  particular  grasshoppers  in  need  of  control;  and  when  the 
application  of  control  measures  is  thorough. 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Acknowledgments  of  favors  are  due  from  the  author  to 
County  Agriculturists  J.  W.  Rigney  and  J.  W.  Knorr  of  Cha- 
ves and  Eddy  Counties,  respectively,  for  aid  in  the  loan  of 
data  on  the  control  operations  in  their  counties.  Mr.  Rigney 
also  very  kindly  lent  the  photographs  from  which  were  made 
cuts  for  Figures  10,  11  and  12.  Mr.  Knorr,  in  like  manner, 
contributed  photographs  for  Figures  8,  14,  15,  16,  18  and  19. 

To  Mr.  M.  P.  Somes,  Entomologist,  Mountain  Grove  (Mis- 
souri) Fruit  Experiment  Station,  thanks  are  due  for  kind  as- 
sistance in  identification  of  several  species  of  grasshoppers. 


BULLETIN  NO.  103 

(TECHNICAL) 

JUNE.  1916 


New  Mexico  College  of  Agriculture 
And  Mechanic  Arts 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 
STATE  COLLEGE,  N.  M. 


The  Ultilization  of  Feed  by  Range  Steers  of 
Different  Ages 


II.  Alfalfa  Hay  and  Milo  Maize  Meal 


By  F.  W.  CHRISTENSEN,  H.  H.  SIMPSON  and  LUTHER  FOSTER 


RIO  ORA  NOE  PHJBLIOH1NG  CO 
LAS  CRUCES,  N<  M. 

iste. 


New  Mexico  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


BOARD  OF  CONTROL 


Board  of  Regents  of  the  College 

J.  H.  PAXTON,  President,  Las  Cruces,  N.  M. 

P.  F.  McCANN A,  Secretary  and  Treasurer,  Albuquerque,  N.  M. 
C.  W.  GERBER,  Las  Cruces,  N.  M. 

R.  R.  LARKIN.  East  Las  Vegas,  N.  M 
J.  A.  MAHONEY,  Deming,  N.  M. 


Advisory  Members 

HON.  W.  C.  McDONALD,  Governor  of  New  Mexico,  Santa  Fe,  N M. 
HON.  A.  N.  WHITE,  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction, 
Santa  Fe,  N.  M. 


STATION  STAFF 


GEORGE  E.  LADD,  Ph.  D 

FABIAN  GARCIA,  M.  S.  A 

LUTHER  FOSTER.  M.  S.  A... 
F.  W.  CHRISTENSEN,  M.  3.. 

D.  E.  MERRILL,  M.  S 

L.  A.  HIGLEY.  Ph.  D 

R.  L.  STEWr A RT,  M.  S A 

D.  W.  A.  BLOODGOOD,  B.  S.. 

JOSE  QUINTERO,  B.  S 

J R MEEKS.  B.  S.  A 

J.  W.  RIGNEY,  B.  S.  A 

J.  G.  HAMILTON,  B.  S.  A 

E.  J.  MAYNARD.  B.  S.  A 

A.  B.  FITE,  B.  S.  A 

J.  T.  BARLOW.  B.  S.  A 

F.  C.  WERKENTHIN,  M.  A... 
R.  B.  THOMPSON,  B.  S.  A.... 

K.  B.  OGILVIE,  B.  S 

H.  G.  SMITH*.  B.  S.  A 

FLOY  E.  FRENCH 

R.  V.  WARE 

C P.  WILSON,  M S 

ARETUS  H.  BRADLEY 


President  of  the  College 

Director  and  Horticulturist 

Animal  Husbandman 

Nutrition  Chemist 

Biologist 

Chemist 

Agronomist 

Irrigation  Engineer 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Animal  Husbandman 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  Animal  Husbandman 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  Biologist 

Assistant  Poultrvman 

Assistant  in  Irrigation 

...Assistant  in  Dry-Land  Agriculture 

Librarian 

Registrar 

Editor 

Station  Stenographer 


•Superintendent  of  the  Tucumcarl,  N.  M..  Field  Station,  operated  by  th« 
U.  P.  Department  of  Agriculture.  In  cooperation  with  the  New  Mexico 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 


CONTENTS 


Introduction  ......  ...  5 

Objects  and  plan ......  5 

Equipment  and  methods  ...  6 

Feed  lots  6 

Digestion  stalls  6 

Digestion  trials  ......  6 

Feeding  7 

Watering  8 

Weighing  (... 8 

Sampling  of  feeds  and  feed  residues 8 

Sampling  of  the  excreta 9 

Chemical  analyses  10 

Terms  used  10 

The  Experiments  . ..  ...........  11 

Preliminary  account  11 

Schedules  12 

Animals  used  13 

Conformation,  type,  and  finish  of  steers  14 

Calves,  yearlings,  two-year-olds,  and  three-year-olds 

Feeds  and  rations  20 

Preparation  and  kinds  of  feeds  used  20 

Nature  of  the  rations  fed  20 

Composition  of  feeds  and  feed  residues  21 

Digestibility  of  the  rations  25 

Effect  of  age  and  individuality  of  animal  upon  digestion 

coefficients  30 

Effect  of  amount  of  feed  upon  digestion  coefficients 33 

A method  of  calculating  the  percentage  digestibility  of  the 

components  of  a ration 36 

Percentage  digestibility  of  the  components  of  the  rations....  39 

Digestible  nutrients  in  feeds  40 

Estimated  energy  values  of  feeds  40 

Gains  in  live  weight  41 

Feed  consumed  for  gains  made  53 

Character  of  gains  indicated  by  nitrogen  balances  56 

Net  energy,  digestible  protein  and  nitrogen  consumed,  and 

estimated  energy  in  gains  60 


Slaughter  tests  65 

Weights  and  percentages  of  various  parts  66 

Wholesale  cuts  68 

Chemical  analyses  69 

Quality  of  meat  73 

Summary  of  results  and  conclusions  75 

Acknowledgments  82 

Pictures  of  steers  and  cuts  of  meat  83 

Appendix  

Tables  of  live  weights,  feed  consumed,  composition  of 
feed  residues,  composition  of  excreta,  weights  of 
excreta,  etc 89-117 


/ 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY  RANGE 
STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES 

II.  Alfalfa  Hay  and  Milo  Maize  Meal 


INTRODUCTION 


This  bulletin  presents  the  results  of  the  second  series  of 
experiments  on  the  Utilization  of  Feed  by  Range  Steers  of 
Different  Ages.  The  results  of  the  first  series,  in  which 
alfalfa  hay  alone  was  fed,  were  published  in  Bulletin  No.  91 
of  this  Station. 

The  objects  of  the  investigations,  as  briefly  stated  in  the 
bulletin  just  cited,  are  (1)  to  study  the  nutritive  effect  of  our 
most  important  feeds  for  the  production  of  beef  with  range 
steers;  (2)  to  study  the  effect,  and  uses  made,  of  feed  by 
range  steers  of  different  ages;  and  (3)  to  study  the  nutri- 
tive effect  and  digestion  coefficients  during  the  three  dif- 
ferent stages  of  fattening. 

For  the  purpose  of  comparing  the  steers  of  different  ages 
in  these  experiments,  five  steers  each  of  calves,  yearlings, 
two-year-olds  and  three-year-olds  were  fed  like  rations  un- 
der similar  conditions  during  a period  of  120  days.  The  util- 
ization of  the  feed  is  measured  by  the  gains  in  live  weight, 
feed  consumed  per  unit  of  gain,  degree  of  finish  of  the  steers, 
slaughter  and  block  tests,  analysis  of  certain  cuts  of  meat, 
and  a comparison  of  digestion  coefficients  at  various  stages  of 
fattening.  In  all  cases  individual  records  are  kept.  The  rel- 
ative digestive  powers  of  the  various  groups  of  steers  are 
compared  by  conducting  digestion  trials  at  certain  intervals 
during  the  feeding  period,  using  two  steers  of  each  age  for 
this  purpose. 


6 THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 

Cattle  grown  on  the  ranges  in  this  section  of  the  country 
are  usually  subjected  to  longer  or  shorter  submaintenance 
periods  when  the  pickings  on  the  ranges  become  scanty,  as 
during  the  winter  and  early  spring  months.  At  such  times, 
the  cattle  are  likely  to  lose  weight  and  weigh  less  in  the  spring 
than  in  the  fall,  unless  supplied  with  additional  feed  by  the 
ranch  owner.  Incidentally,  some  observations  have  been  made 
as  to  whether  or  not  the  digestive  powers  of  the  animals 
have  been  affected  by  these  conditions,  and  will  be  consid- 
ered later. 

Equipment  and  Methods  Used. 

Feed  Lots.  The  feed  lots  used  in  this  series  are  the  same 
as  those  used  in  the  alfalfa  hay  series,  and  are  described  in 
Bulletin  No.  91  of  this  Experiment  Station.  The  lots  are 
10  by  36  feet  in  size,  equipped  with  suitable  mangers  and 
stanchions,  and  fenced  with  woven  wire  fencing  five  feet 
high.  The  steers  were  fed  in  the  open,  except  while  on  di- 
gestion trials;  no  shelter  being  provided,  other  than  a natural 
windbreak  of  trees  and  evergreens  on  two  sides  of  the  feed 
lots. 

Digestion  or  Metabolism  Stalls.  The  stalls  used  in  the 
digestion  trials  are  contained  in  a house  adjoining  the  feed 
lots.  The  stalls  are  arranged  for  the  use  of  rubber  ducts 
and  funnels  in  collecting  the  excreta.  These  ducts  and  fun- 
nels are  the  same  as  those  so  successfully  used  by  Armsby 
and  Fries  in  the  Institute  of  Animal  Nutrition  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania State  College,  and  therefore  will  not  be  d°scribed 
here  . The  floors  of  the  stalls  were  well  padded  with  ex- 
celsior and  heavy  matting,  for  the  comfort  of  the  steers. 

The  Digestion  Trials.  The  alfalfa  hay  for  the  digestion 
trials  and  preliminary  periods  was  carefully  mixed,  then 
weighed  up  into  large  canvas  bags,  a day’s  ration  to  the 
bag.  The  milo  maize  meal  was  similarly  mixed  and  weighed 
into  covered  lard  cans,  a day’s  ration  to  the  can.  Enough 


RANGE  steers  of  different  ages. 


7 


rations  for  the  whole  of  the  preliminary  and  digestion  per- 
iods were  weighed  out  in  advance  and  the  samples  for  chem- 
ical analysis  taken  at  this  time. 

In  conducting  the  digestion  trials  a preliminary  feeding 
period  of  eight  days  was  observed,  during  which  the  steers 
received  identically  the  same  rations  as  during  the  following 
ten-day  digestion  period,  but  the  steers  were  not  placed  in 
the  metabolism  stalls  at  the  beginning  of  the  period.  It  has 
been  found  impracticable  to  tame  our  steers  sufficiently  to 
permit  of  their  removal  from  the  stalls  for  exercise  while 
on  the  digestion  trials.  Therefore,  in  order  not  to  keep  the 
steers  in  the  stalls  longer  than  necessary,  they  were  placed 
in  the  stalls  only  a day  or  two  before  the  beginning  of  the 
digestion  period  proper,  during  the  series  of  1913.  As  the 
steers  are  sometimes  disturbed  by  being  removed  from  the 
feed  lots  to  the  digestion  stalls,  they  were  taken  to  the  stalls 
four  to  five  days  before  the  beginning  of  the  digestion  trials 
in  the  1915  series. 

For  the  sake  of  convenience  in  caring  for  the  samples 
of  excreta  in  the  digestion  trials,  the  experimental  day  was 
made  to  begin  and  end  at  1 o’clock  P.  M.  The  feces  and 
urines  for  24-hour  intervals  were  collected  at  this  hour  for 
ten  successive  days,  unless  interrupted  through  accident;  all 
receptacles  were  changed  promptly,  and  the  collected  excreta 
weighed,  carefully  mixed  and  sampled  as  soon  as  practicable. 

Feeding.  The  steers  were  fed  regularly  at  7 o’clock  A. 
M.  and  4:30  P.  M.  Approximately  one-half  of  the  day’s  ra- 
tion was  fed  in  the  evening  and  the  other  half  in  the  morn- 
ing. This  practice  was  followed  throughout  the  feeding- 
periods.  The  hay  and  grain  were  fed  together  and  mixed 
more  or  less  after  being  placed  in  the  feed  boxes.  Any  feed 
residues  remaining  in  the  feed  boxes  were  collected  from  time 
to  time  and  weighed  up  at  the  end  of  each  ten-day  period. 
The  feed  residues  for  the  ten-day  periods,  from  each  steer, 
were  reserved  separately  until  the  end  of  the  month;  at  which 


8 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


time  the  separate  portions,  if  any,  were  united,  mixed  and 
sampled  for  analysis.  Any  feed  residues  collected  during 
the  digestion  trials  were  analyzed  separately  from  the  other 
residues. 

Watering.  The  steers  were  watered  once  each  day,  at 
about  9:30  A.  M.,  during-  the  experiments  of  1913.  The  prac- 
tice of  watering  only  once  each  day  was  unsatisfactory  in 
some  respects,  and  therefore  watering  troughs  were  placed 
in  the  feed  lots  so  as  to  allow  access  to  water  during  the 
greater  part  of  the  day  during  1915.  The  troughs  were  pro- 
vided with  covers,  which  were  closed  at  the  time  of  the  even- 
ing feeding  and  kept  closed  until  after  the  steers  were  weighed 
the  next  morning  at  about  9 o’clock.  This  method  of  water- 
ing has  been  found  more  satisfactory  than  the  one  used  here- 
tofore. 

Weighing.  In  the  experiments  of  1913  all  the  steers  were 
weighed  for  three  successive  days  at  the  beginning  of  the 
experiment  and  at  the  end  of  each  thirty  days.  They  were 
also  weighed  once  every  ten  days  during  each  month,  except 
when  on  digestion  trials.  The  steers  used  in  the  digestion 
tests  were  weighed  for  three  successive  days  before  entering 
+he  stalls,  and  again  for  three  days  after  coming  out. 

For  various  reasons,  it  was  deemed  advisable  to  make 
weighings  every  day,  and  therefore,  in  the  experiments  of 
1915  the  steers  were  weighed  daily,  except  when  on  digestion 
trials.  In  all  cases, — both  years, — the  steers  were  weighed 
sixteen  hours  or  more  after  drinking. 

Sampling  of  Feeds  and  Feed  Residues.  At  the  time  of 
weighing  up  the  rations  for  the  digestion  trials  a shovelful 
of  the  cut  hay  was  put  aside  for  every  three  or  four  rations 
weighed  up.  When  the  weighings  were  completed  the  portion 
thus  set  aside  was  reduced  by  quartering  to  a convenient  sized 
sample,  which  was  then  finely  chopped  with  a draw  cut  meat 
chopper,  and  taken  to  the  laboratory,  where  a weighed  portion 
was  dried  at  about  60°  C.  The  dried  samples  were  allowed 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


9 


to  cooi  and  come  into  equilibrium  with  atmospheric  condi- 
tions, weighed,  ground,  and  reserved  for  analysis  in  seaUd 
glass  stoppered  bottles. 

The  milo  maize  meal  was  sampled  and  treated  in  the  same 
way  as  the  hay,  except  that  it  was  not  run  through  the  meat 
chopper. 

In  addition  to  the  samples  taken  for  the  digestion  trials, 
composite  or  monthly  samples  were  taken  by  setting  aside 
portions  of  hay  and  meal  each  day  as  the  rations  for  the 
steers  in  the  feed  lots  were  weighed  out.  / At  the  end  of  the 
month  the  portions  set  aside  w:re  thoroughly  mixed  and  sam- 
pled. 

The  feed  residues  collected  from  time  to  time,  exclusive 
of  digestion  trials,  were  weighed  up  every  ten  days.  These 
ten-day  residues,  if  any,  were  combined  at  the  end  of  the 
month  and  again  weighed,  and  sampled.  These  samples  were 
treated  the  same  as  the  hay  samples.  'In  order  to  reduce  the 
analytical  work  as  far  as  possible,  the  feed  residues,  exclusive 
of  digestion  trials,  were  composited  separately  for  each  steer 
for  the  entire  feeding  period  of  1913  according  to  the  method 
shown  in  Bulletin  91  of  this  Station. 

In  the  1915  experiments  there  were  only  a few  small  res- 
idues >vhich  were  analyzed  separately,  except  for  the  first 
month.  Through  a misunderstanding,  our  attendant  combin- 
ed all  the  feed  residues  from  the  feed  lots  at  the  end  of  the 
first  month,  instead  of  simply  combining  the  ten-dav  residues 
for  each  steer. 

Sampling  the  Excreta.  The  excreta  were  weighed  and 
sampled  once  during  each  twenty-four  hours  for  a period 
of  ten  days.  As  soon  as  practicable  after  changing  the  recep- 
tacles, the  excreta  from  the  various  steers  were  weighed  and 
sampled.  The  total  feces  collected  during  the  day  from  each 
steer  were  thoroughly  mixed  on  a zinc  covered  platform  and  re- 
duced to  a convenient  sized  sample  by  the  method  of  quarter- 
ing. 


10  THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 

The  samples  obtained  in  this  way  were  taken  to  the  labor- 
atory, where  uniform  aliquots,  usually  corresponding  to  1-50 
or  1-25  of  the  total  feces,  were  weighed  out  and  placed  in 
zinc  cans;  one  can  being  provided  for  each  steer.  The  cans 
were  provided  with  covers,  which  were  tightly  sealed  by 
means  of  broad  rubber  bands.  During  the  trials  the  samples 
were  kept  in  a well  iced  refrigerator  and  further  preserved  by 
means  of  carbon  bisulphide.  At  the  end  of  the  digestion  trial 
these  aliquots  formed  a composite  sample  for  the  period,  which 
was  thoroughly  mixed  and  analyzed  by  the  usual  methods. 

Aliquot  samples  of  the  urine  were  weighed  up  each  day. 
as  in  the  case  of  the  feces,  and  at  the  end  of  the  trial  the 
nitrogen  content  of  the  samples  was  determined.  The  sam- 
ples were  kept  in  a well  iced  refrigerator  and  preserved  with 
chloroform. 

Chemical  Analyses.  All  analyses  of  feeds,  feed  resi- 

dues, feces  and  urines  were  made  according  to  the  methods 
of  the  Association  of  Official  Agricultural  Chemists,  except 
the  moisture  determinations,  and  the  nitrogen  determinations 
in  the  fresh  feces.  The  moisture  determinations  were  made 
by  drying  in  vacuum  desiccators  in  the  presence  of  sulphuric 
acid,  while  the  nitrogen  determinations  in  the  fresh  feces 
were  made  by  digesting  to  a liquid  state  100  grams  of  the 
fresh  feces,  with  sulphuric  acid  and  mercury,  making  the  whole 
up  to  volume  and  determining  the  nitrogen  in  aliquot  portions 
of  this  by  means  of  the  regular  Kjeldahl  method,  as  described 
in  our  previous  publication. 

Terms  Used.  As  applied  to  the  feeds  and  feed  residues, 
the  term  “protein”  refers  to  “true  protein,”  excluding  the  non- 
protein nitrogenous  substances,  and  is  calculated  from  the 
protein  nitrogen  by  the  conventional  factor  6.25.  The  total 
nitrogen  of  the  feces  and  meat  samples  has  been  multiplied 
by  6.25  to  obtain  the  protein. 

The  “non-protein”  has  been  obtained  by  multiplying  the 
difference  between  the  total  nitrogen  and  the  protein  nitro- 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


11 


gen,  as  determined  by  the  Stutzer  method,  by  use  of  the 
factor  4.7. 

The  unit  for  energy  employed  in  this  bulletin  is  the 
“therm,”  and  is  equal  to  1,000  large  or  kilogram  calories. 


THE  EXPERIMENTS. 

Our  facilities  permit  of  feeding  only  ten  steers  at  a time, 
and  therefore  to  carry  out  the  plan  outlined  in  the  introduc- 
tion, namely,  the  feeding  of  four  groups  of  steers,  ranging 
in  ages  from  calves  to  three-year-olds,  with  five  in  each  group, 
necessitates  two  separate  feeding  periods.  In  this  experiment 
we  followed  the  plan  of  feeding  calves  and  yearlings  in  1913 
and  two-year-olds  and  three-year-olds  in  1915.  This  arrange- 
ment is  rather  unfortunate  since  the  groups  fed  during  the  dif- 
ferent years  were  fed  under  different  climatic  conditions;  from 
different  lots  of  feed,  and,  as  happens  in  this  case,  the  steers 
used  in  1915  differed  in  type  and  breeding  from  those  of 
1913.  On  this  account  the  results  for  the  series  as  a whole  are 
not  as  comparable  as  might  be  desired.  However,  aside  from 
the  uncontrollable  factors  and  unavoidable  differences  in  the 
steers  and  lots  of  feed,  the  experiments  during  the  two  years 
were  conducted  under  as  nearly  like  conditions  as  possible. 

The  feeding  period  proper  extended  over  120  days  in 
each  case,  during  which  ill  feed  offered  was  carefully  weigh- 
ed and  sampled  for  analysis  and  any  feed  residues  were  also 
weighed  and  sampled.  The  steers  used  in  the  experiments 
were  received  at  the  Experiment  Station  from  six  weeks  to 
two  months  before  the  exnerimental  feeding  was  begun.  Dur- 
ing this  time  the  steers  were  tamed  as  much  as  possible  and  fed 
enough  alfalfa  to  keep  them  in  good  condition  without  mak- 
ing appreciable  gains.  As  the  time  for  smarting  the  feeding 
period  drew  near,  small  amounts  of  milo  maize  meal  were  add- 
ed to  the  grain  before  the  experiment  was  begun. 


12 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


As  the  steers  used  in  the  experiments  of  1915  had  not 
been  dehorned  before  delivery  to  the  Station,  this  operation 
causd  considerable  delay  in  starting  the  experiments  that  year, 
as  the  steers  could  not  be  tamed  until  the  wounds  from  the 
dehorning  had  been  healed,  or  nearly  so.  This  explains  why 
the  experiments  of  1913  began  early  in  January  and  those 
of  1915  not  until  February  25.  As  the  feeding  was  begun  so 
late  in  1915  it  was  deemed  best  to  omit  the  third  digestion 
trial  in  the  series,  on  account  of  hot  weather. 

The  experiments  of  the  two  years  are  really  parts  of  one 
experiment,  and  therefore  will  be  considered  as  such,  with 
such  deviations  as  may  seem  necessary  on  account  of  varia- 
tions in  the  conditions.  To  facilitate  the  comparison  of  the 
feeding  periods  of  the  two  years,  general  schedules  of  the 
experiments  by  months  as  \vell  as  dates  of  digestion  trials, 
are  given  herewith. 

GENERAL  SCHEDULES  OF  THE  EXPERIMENTS 
Experiments  of  1913:  Calves  and  Yearlings. 

First  month  or  period,  January  2 to  February  1. 

Digestion  trial  I,  January  20  to  30. 

Second  month  or  period,  February  1 to  March  3. 

Third  month  March  3 to  April  2. 

Digestion  trial  II,  March  11  to  21. 

Fourth  month,  April  2 to  May  2. 

Digestion  trial  III,  April  15  to  25. 

Experiments  of  1915:  Two-  and  Three-year-olds. 

First  month,  February  25  to  March  27. 

Digestion  trial  I,  March  15  to  25. 

Second  month,  March  27  to  April  26. 

Third  month.  April  26  to  May  26. 

Digestion  trial  II,  May  4 to  14. 

Fourth  month.  May  26  to  June  25. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


13 


Animals  Used. 

The  animals  used  in  the  experiments  of  1913  were  most- 
ly high-grade  Hereford  range  steers,  representative  of  the 
steers  grown  by  the  most  progressive  cattlemen  of  the  South- 
western range  country,  and  were  obtained  from  the  ranges  in 
the  vicinity  of  the  College  and  Station.  In  selecting  the  steers 
an  attempt  was  made  to  secure  animals  that  were  fairly  uni- 
form as  to  type,  weight,  age  and  condition,  and  at  the  same 
time  representative  of  the  general  run  of  range  steers  of 
their  respective  ages. 

Considerable  difficulty  was  experienced  in  securing  the 
two-  and  three-ycar-old  steers  used  in  the  experiments  of  1915, 
owing  to  the  practice  of  selling  the  stock  off  the  ranges  at 
an  earlier  period.  Since  no  steers  of  these  ages  could  be  obtain- 
ed for  feeding  in  1914,  arrangements  were  made  to  secure 
steers  for  the  completion  of  this  series  in  1915.  In  this,  how- 
ever, we  were  not  especially  fortunate,  inasmuch  as  the  steers 
finally  secured  differed  from  those  used  in  1913,  in  breeding, 
being  largely  grade  Shorthorn  stock;  and  also  in  type,  condi- 
tion and  uniformity.  The  lack  of  uniformity  in  type  and  con- 
dition was  especially  noticeable  in  the  three-year-olds.  These 
steers  were  of  necessity  chosen  from  “left-overs”  brought  in 
from  another  part  of  the  State,  and  it  was  found  impossible  to 
get  a uniform  bunch- of  this  age  or  individuals  that  were  really 
comparable  with  the  other  ages  of  steers  used  in  the  tests. 
The  two-year-olds,  of  course,  differed  from  th.  calves  and 
yearlings  in  breeding,  but  compared  fairly  well  with  them  in 
other  respects 

The  designations,  calves,  yearlings,  two-year-olds,  and 
three-year-olds,  as  employed  in  this  bulletin,  are  relative  terms 
only.  The  exact  ages  of  the  animals  are  unknown.  What  we 
refer  to  as  “calves”  means  calves  dropped  during  the  spring  or 
summer  preceding  the  feeding  period,  which  occurred  during 
the  winter  and  spring  months.  Thus  the  “calves”  were  probably 


14 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


10  to  12  months  of  age  at  the  end  of  the  experiment.  The  year- 
lings, twos  and  threes  were  “long”  yearlings,  twos  and  threes, 
so  that  at  the  end  of  the  feeding  periods  the  various  groups 
of  steers  were  practically  one-,  two-,  three-  and  four-year-olds. 

For  the  sake  of  convenience  ancj  simplicity  in  the  present- 
ation and  discussion  of  the  data  and  results,  the  individual 
steers  will  be  referred  to  by  {lumber  or  age  groups.  The 
groups  and  numbers  of  the  steers  are  as  follows:  calves,  26 
to  30;  yearlings  21  to  25;  two-year-olds,  36  to  40;  three-year- 
olds,  31  to  35. 

Conformation,  Type  and  Finish  of  Steers. 

Calves.  Of  the  steers  composing  this  group,  steer  26  was 
the  poorest  in  the  bunch.  He  was  light  boned,  rather  leggy 
and  his  body  was  narrow  and  shallow.  His  top  line  was 
fairly  good  but  dropped  off  somewhat  at  the  rump.  He  ap- 
peared delicate  in  constitution  and  proved  a poor  feeder.  At 
the  end  of  the  feeding  period  he  lacked  finish  throughout. 

Steer  27  was  a fairly  broad,  short-limbed,  blocky  indi- 
vidual with  staggy  head  and  coarse,  heavy  neck,  with  fair 
shoulders  but  was  “tied  in”  somewhat  around  the  chest.  His 
hind  parts  .appeared  better  than  his  foreparts. 

Steers  28,  29,  and  30  were  good  smooth,  well  balanced 
steers,  having  good  depth  of  bodv  and  showing  no  undue 
paunchiness.  Steer  28  was  o :e  of  the  smoothest  steers  in  the 
bunch,  being  well  balanced  throughout,  and  having  a broad 
loin,  and  shapely  well  covered  hips.  He  showed  the  best  and 
most  uniform  finish  of  any  of  the  calves,  and  probably  better 
quality  than  any  of  the  others  in  1913.  He  had  a good  top 
line,  a smooth  well  covered  shoulder,  and  well  formed  hips, 
but  was  a little  off-type,  rather  light  in  the  hind  parts,  and 
somewhat  leggy,  but  he  carried  a fairly  good  smooth  finish. 
Steer  30  was  the  lightest  of  the  calves.  He  had  a straight 
back,  a smooth  shoulder  and  well  developed  hind  parts.  In 
quality  he  was  just  fair,  having  medium  bone,  rather  thick 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


15 


hide,  and  carried  a good  amount  of  flesh.  He  was  a little 
plain  and  coarse  about  the  head  and  appeared  a little  heavier 
in  front  than  behind. 

Yearlings.  Steer  21  was  well  shaped  about  the  shoulders 
and  chest,  being  rather  deep  and  broad,  but  was  a trifle  low  in 
the  back.  His  greatest  fault  was  his  paunchiness,  although 
he  also  lacked  symmetry.  Compared  with  the  fore  parts,  he 
was  a little  high  at  the  tail  head  and  somewhat  light  in  the 
hind  quarters.  He  was  rather  large  boned,  but  was  not  a 
coarse  steer.  At  the  end  of  the  feeding  period  he  was  in  good 
average  condition,  but  not  especially  fat. 

Steers  22  and  23  were  both  well  balanced,  symmetrical 
individuals,  neither  steer  showed  any  excessive  paunchiness. 
Steer  22  appeared  a little  upstanding,  but  this  was  apparently 
due  to  depth  of  body  rather  than  length  of  legs.  He  showed 
good  front,  middle  and  hind  parts  but  was  a trifle  low  in 
the  back.  At  the  end  of  the  feeding  period  he  was  well 
filled  in  the  twist  and  flank,  but  was  not  as  well  fill'd 
along  the  back,  hip,  and  rump  as  might  have  bem  desired. 
However,  he  showed  more  quality  than  any  of  the  other  year- 
lings. Steer  23  differed  from  steer  22  chiefly  in  that  he  had 
a better  top  line,  rather  short  and  broad  head  and  neck,  and 
in  being  particularly  smooth  in  front,  that  is,  over  the  bris- 
ket, shoulder  and  chest.  He  had  somewhat  finer  bone  and 
a well  distributed  covering  of  natural  flesh.  The  ribs  were 
well  Sprung  and  covered  with  a good  layer  of  flesh.  The 
loins  and  hips  were  also  well  covered,  and  the  hind  quarter 
presented,  on  the  whole,  a nice  well  filled  appearance,  except 
for  a slight  lack  of  fullness  at  the  rump.  Steers  24  and  25 
differed  noticeably  from  the  other  three  steers  of  this  group 
in  that  they  were  more  upstanding  and  not  so  well  balanced. 
Both  steers  were  rather  high-cut  in  the  hind  flank,  but  steer 
24,  although  a little  rangy,  had  fairly  good  depth  of  chest. 
Steer  25,  on  the  other  hand,  lacked  in  depth  of  chest.  Steer 
24  proved  to  be  a poor  feeder,  made  very  small  gains  and 


16 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


hence  lacked  finish  at  the  end  of  the  experiment.  Steer  25 
had  a nice  top  line,  a smooth,  well  formed  shoulder,  and  in 
general  was  a fairly  smooth  animal.  Neck  and  shoulder 
blended  nicely.  As  regards  finish,  his  shoulder  was  well  cov- 
ered but  he  lacked  filling  in  the  loin,  rump,  and  thighs.  A lit- 
tle longer  time  in  the  feed  lot  would  probably  have  made  him 
a well  finished  and  balanced  animal. 

Two-Year-oids.  The  difference  between  36,  39,  and  40 
was  very  small  as  regards  type.  All  three  of  the  steers  were 
desirable  in  most  respects.  Steer  36  conformed  very  closely 
to  the  requirements  of  a beef  animal.  He  had  a square,  low- 
set,  compact  appearance  but  was  a little  plain  about  the 
shoulders  and  light  in  the  flank  and  did  not  carry  down  well 
in  the  hind  quarters;  however,  he  was  desirable  as  a feeder 
because  of  his  beefy  conformation,  square  head,  short  neck, 
and  general  beef  producing  characteristics.  Steer  39  was  a 
little  coarse  and  rough,  showing  lack  of  quality,  but  possess- 
ed the  characteristic  big  bone,  and  square,  low-set  conforma- 
tion that  is  indicative  of  a good  beef  animal.  His  barrel 
was  a little  undersize  and  his  hind  quarters  lacked  flesh. 
The  tail  head  was  high,  giving  him  an  ungainly,  rangy  ap- 
pearance. Steer  40  possessed  the  desired  low-set,  compact 
appearance,  but  was  rough  and  his  barrel  not  quite  large 
enough.  His  ribs  were  not  well  sprung,  and  the  covering 
over  the  loin  was  rather  light.  The  hind  quarters  were  not 
well  fleshed,  but  they  were  large  and  capable  of  filling  out. 
He  belonged  to  the  class  of  feeder  steers  possessing  the  pe- 
culiar ability  of  developing  into  good  beef  animals  far  be- 
yond the  expectation  of  the  feeder. 

At  the  close  of  the  feeding  experiment  steer  36  was  one 
of  the  leading  steers  of  the  lot.  While  he  did  not  carry 
his  flesh  evenly  distributed,  he  was  more  uniformly  finished 
than  any  of  the  others.  He  was  not  as  well  developed  in 
the  hind  quarters  as  either  39  or  40,  but  showed  a general 
symmetrical  outline,  and  in  general  came  nearer  to  the  ideal 
beef  type  than  any  of  the  others  fed  this  year. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


17 


No.  39  was  a close  rival  of  bfo.  3 b.  While  his  barrel 

was  smaller  and  deeper,  the  ribs  were  not  so  well  sprung, 

but  his  hind  quarters  were  much  deeper  and  broader;  in  fact, 
his  rear  quarters  were  the  most  desirable  of  any  steer  in  the 
experiment.  The  chief  objections  to  him  were  that  he  was 
a little  rangy  and  cut-up  in  the  flank.  His  bone  appeared 
somewhat  coarse,  yet  he  showed  more  quality  than  No.  40. 
This  animal  improved  wonderfully  the  last  few  days  of  the 
feeding  trial,  and  if  he  had  been  fed  another  sixty  d(ays,  he 
probably  would  have  exhibited  a very  desirable  type  or  a fin- 
ished beef  animal. 

No.  40  was  more  evenly  fleshed  over  the  back  and  ribs 

than  No.  39,  but  his  hind  quarters  did  not  carry  down  as  well 

and  his  rump  was  irregular,  showing  a patchy  condition  of 
flesh.  He  possessed  a large  bone,  but  he  was  a little  on  the 
rangy  type,  being  cut-up  in  the  flank,  giving  him  a leggy  ap- 
pearance. However,  he  proved  a good  feeder. 

Steers  37  and  38  were  off-type  and  were  lacking  in  qual- 
ity. Their  conformation  was  such  as  to  suggest  dairy  type 
rather  than  beef  type.  The  body  of  No.  37  did  not  show 
the  low-set  blocky  appearance  desired  in  a beef  animal.  His 
head  and  neck  evidenced  femininity  and  his  shoulders  were 
coarse.  The  ribs  were  not  well  sprung,  but  his  bac^c,  though 
narrow,  was  deeply  fleshed  but  patchy.  He  lacked  develop- 
ment in  the  hind  quarters  and  size  of  bone  to  carry  a large 
amount  of  flesh.  No.  38  had  a fairly  large  bone,  but  was 
narrow  in  the  body.  His  barrel  was  small  and  his  ribs  not 
well  sprung.  The  hind  quarters  were  light  and  did  not  pos- 
sess the  desired  conformation  for  beef  production.  At  the 
completion  of  the  feeding  trial  steer  37  had  fleshed  up  fairly 
well  over  the  back  and  loin,  but  he  still  possessed  a lean  and 
rough  appearance.  His  head,  neck  and  fore  quarters  did  not 
show  the  width  and  depth  indicative  of  a finished  steer.  With 
steer  38  the  most  consnicuous  defects,  aside  from  his  being 
off-type,  were  his  small  middle  and  irregular  top  and  bottom 


18 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


lines.  His  head  and  neck  were  coarse,  but  his  shoulders  car- 
ried their  flesh  well.  His  ribs  were  not  well  sprung  and  his 
back  and  loin  did  not  carry  the  desired  amount  of  flesh.  He 
did  not  fill  out  sufficiently  to  overcome  his  leggy  appearance. 

Three-Year-Olds.  Steer  31  was  a very  large  rough  in- 
dividual, evidencing  poor  feeding  qualities.  He  was  a good 
representative  of  the  extreme  rangy  type,  having  a narrow, 
upstanding  body  of  decidedly  poor  quality,  coarse  bone,  and 
general  conformation  diametrically  opposed  to  good  fleshing 
qualities.  At  the  completion  of  the  feeding  trial  this  animal 
showed  considerable  improvement,  in  that  he  had  fleshed 
up  over  the  shoulders  fairly  well,  but  his  back  and  loin  were 
still  deficient  in  flesh.  His  barrel  was  small  and  his  hind 
quarters  were  not  developed  in  proportion  with  his  fore  quar- 
ters. If  he  had  been  fed  another  sixty  day's  he  probably  would 
have  shown  more  finish,  but  he  never  could  have  reached 
the  standard  of  a prime  finished  steer,  because  of  his  off-type. 
Steer  32  was  very  similar  to  31  in  that  he  was  rangy  and  up- 
standing, but  he  was  a more  desirable  type,  being  a little  more 
symmetrical,  large  boned,  but  not  so  coarse  as  31,  and  his  body 
and  hind  quarters  were  not  so  rough,  carrying  more  flesh 
and  being  developed  more  uniformly.  At  the  end  of  the  feed- 
ing period  this  steer  evidenced  a marked  improvement.  He 
had  taken  on  flesh  uniformly  and  had  developed  in  spring  of 
rib,  thickness  of  loin,  and  width  of  back.  His*  hind  quarters 
were  still  a little  light,  because  the  flesh  did  not  carry  down 
well.  He  still  retained  some  of  the  rough,  ungainly  appear- 
ance he  had  at  the  beginning.  Steer  33  conformed  more 
nearly  to  the  desirable  type  of  a feeder  steer,  having  a large 
frame  and  possessing  more  of  the  desirable  feeding  charac- 
teristics. He  had  rather  light  hind  quarters  and  small  barrel, 
and  >vas  cut-up  in  the  flank.  He  lacked  the  proper  width 
and  depth  of  back  and  loin,  but  his  general  appearance  was 
such  as  to  make  him  desirable  for  the  feed  lot.  He  evidenced 
the  fact  that  he  was  a good  feeder  at  the  end  of  the  feeding 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


19 


trial,  had  fleshed  up  well  over  the  back  and  loin,  had  a more 
desirable  spring  of  rib,  and  broader  back,  and  his  hind  quar- 
ters carried  more  flesh.  The  hind  quarters  were  not  in  pro- 
portion with  the  rest  of  his  body,  being  smaller  and  not  near- 
ly as  well  developed  as  the  fore  quarters.  Steers  34  and  35 
were  decidely  off-type,  and  were  not  good  subjects  for  the 
feed  lot.  No.  34  was  a leggy,  narrow-bodied,  large,  coarse- 
boned  animal.  His  barrel  was  small  and  his  back  thinly  flesh- 
ed. Steer  35  was  very  similar  to  34,  having  a narrow  body, 
was  leggy  and  showed  very  poor  quality.  He  was  very  light 
in  the  middle  and  cut-up  in  the  flank,  dropped  off  at  the 
tail  head  and  showed  poor  development  of  hind  quarters. 
Neither  of  these  steers  showed  any  marked  improvement  at 
the  finish  of  the  feeding  trial.  No.  34  had  taken  on  flesh  to 
some  extent,  but  did  not  develop  in  the  region  of  the  barrel 
as  a good  feeder  should,  and  his  flesh  was  patchy.  It  was 
especially  well  placed  over  the  upper  part  of  the  shoulders. 
The  hind  quarters  w.  re  lacking  in  flesh.  No.  35  filled  out 
a little  more  than  34  but  he,  too,  was  not  well  fleshed.  He 
had  not  filled  out  fully  over  the  back  and  loin.  His  arched 
back,  high  tail  head,  and  high-cut  flank,  taken  together,  made 
him  appear  very  rough  and  ungainly. 

If  the  two-  and  thre e-year-old  steers  were  considered 
from  the  feeder’s  point  of  view  with  respect  to  the  most  de- 
sirable finish  exhibited  bv  each  steer,  they  would  have  ranked 
as  follows : 

No.  36,  first  place. 

No.  39,  second  place. 

No.  40,  third  place. 

No.  32,  fourth  place. 

No.  33,  fifth  place. 

No.  37,  sixth  place. 

No.  35,  seventh  place. 

No.  38,  eighth  place. 

No.  34,  ninth  place 

No.  31,  tenth  place 


20  THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 

Feeds  and  Rations. 

Feeds;  Kinds  and  Preparation.  First  cutting  alfalfa  hay 
and  milo  maize  meal  of  good  quality  constituted  the  feeds 
in  these  experiments.  The  alfalfa  fed  in  1913  was  a good 
grade  of  hay,  having  good  color,  together  with  an  abundance 
of  leaves  and  light  to  medium  sterns,  but  that  fed  in  1915  was 
rather  coarse  stemmed  , although  it  also  had  good  color 
and  an  abundance  of  leaves.  The  coarseness  of  the  latter 
is  clearly  indicated  by  its  high  percentage  of  crude  fiber.  All 
the  hay  used  in  the  experiments  had  been  grown  under  irri- 
gation in  the  vicinity  of  the  Experiment  Station. 

To  facilitate  the  weighing  of  the  rations,  and  the  sam- 
pling of  the  hay,  it  was  chopped  into  lengths  of  about  one  inch 
by  running  it  through  a feed  cutter.  The  whole  mass  of  chip- 
ped hay  was  then  thoroughly  mixed  and  the  rations  weighed 
up  from  it  during  the  progress  of  the  experiment. 

The  milo  maize  was  purchased  on  the  market,  and  prob- 
ably came  from  the  dry  farming  sections  of  New  Mexico 
or  Texas.  The  grain  was  clean,  with  well  tleveloped  kernels, 
and  on  the  whole  would  be  considered  a good  grade  of  milo.* 

It  was  ground  in  the  mills  at  the  Experiment  Station,  suf- 
ficiently fine  to  insure  the  cracking  of  all,  or  practically  all, 
of  the  kernels.  Some  of  the  smaller  kernels  occasionally 
passed  through  the  mill  without  being  crushed,  but  the  amount 
was  small. 

Rations  Fed.  Since  the  various  groups  of  steers,  rang- 
ing in  ages  from  calves  to  three-year-olds,  were  to  be  com- 
pared as  to  their  ability  to  utilize  feeds,  it  was  necessary  that 
they  should  receive  like  rations  during  corresponding  periods 
of  the  experiment.  It  was  therefore  decided  to  keep  the  ratio 
of  hay  and  grain  the  same  for  all  the  animals  during  cor- 
responding intervals  of  the  feeding  period,  but  to  allow  them 
all  the  feed  they  would  consume.  Thus  during  the  first 
month  the  ratio  of  alfalfa  to  mifo  maize  meal  was  2 to  1.  Dur- 


RANGE  STEERS  OP  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


21 


ing  the  second  month,  the  proportion  of  grain  to  hay  was  in- 
creased from  time  to  time  so  as  to  reach  a ratio  of  1 to  1 by 
the  twentieth  day  of  the  month.  This  ratio  was  maintained 
during  the  remainder  of  the  experiment,  but  the  amounts 
fed  were  determined  by  the  appetites  of  the  steers. 

The  ratio  of  hay  to  grain  was  kept  constant  throughout 
the  entire  first  month,  for  the  reason  that  two  steers  of  each 
age  were  used  in  the  digestion  trials  during  the  latter  part  of 
the  month,  and  therefore  required  unchanged  rations,  dur- 
ing this  time;  that  is,  for  18  days.  In  this  way,  the  steers 
remaining  in  the  feed  lots  had  no  undue  advantage  over  the 
ones  in  the  digestion  stalls,  as  the  rations  were  not  changed 
except  as  to  quantity,  while  the  digestion  trials  were  in  pro- 
gress. Hence,  difference's  noted  in  the  rates  of  gains  be- 
tween the  steers  in  the  digestion  stalls  and  those  outside  must 
be  ascribed  to  differences  in  the  quantities  of  food  consumed* 
rather  than  to  differences  in  the  kinds  of  rations  supplied, 
and  also  to  differences  in  the  conditions  surrounding  the 
steers  in  each  case.  Of  course  under  this  plan,  rather  more 
time  was  allowed  in  bringing  the  steers  onto  full  feed 
than  is  customary,  but  for  our  purpose  it  seemed  the  best 
plan  to  follow. 

Composition  of  the  Feeds  and  Feed  Residues. 

Different  lots  of  feed  were  used  in  the  experiments  of  the 
two  years,  and  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  hay  fed  in  1915 
was  inferior  to  that  used  in  1913,  inasmuch  as  it  contained 
about  10  per  cent  more  crude  fiber  and  was  correspondingly 
lower  in  other  nutrients,  especially  protein  and  nitrogen-free 
extract.  In  the  case  of  the  milo  maize  meal  the  differences 
are  not  so  marked,  although,  on  the  average,  the  meal  of 
1915  was  a little  higher  in  protein  and  crude  fiber  and  lower 
in  nitrogen-free  extract  than  that  of  1913 


22 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  1.— COMPOSITION  OF  ALFALFA  HAY,  1913. 


Digestion 

Trial  I, 
per  cent 

First 

month, 

per  cent 

Second 

month, 

per  cent 

Digestion 

Trial  II, 

per  cent 

Digestion 

Trial  III, 

per  cent 

Third 

month, 

per  cent 

Fourth 

month, 

per  cent 

Average, 

per  cent 

Dry  matter  

| 89.63  | 

89.74 

90.31 

90.25 

92.16 

92.52 

92.97 

91.08 

Composition  of  dry  j 
matter: 

Ash  

1 

1 

1 9.71  j 

9.29 

8.05 

8.15 

9.13 

1 

| 9.06 

9.19 

8.94 

Protein  

| 14.31  j 

1 14.10 

14.48 

| 13.88  | 

| 13.06 

| 13.65 

13.32 

43.83 

Non-protein  | 

2.35  I 

2.38 

2.25 

2.45 

2.50  | 

| 2.51 

2.12 

2.37 

Cru^e  fiber  

28.07  ] 

29.29 

28.28 

32.00 

28.46 

| 30.24 

31.01 

29.62 

Ether  extract  

1.54  | 

1.36 

1.42 

1.38 

1.33 

| 1.37 

1.35 

1.39 

Nitrogen-free  ex-  . 
tract  

1 

44.02 

| 43.58 

45.52 

42.14 

45.52 

| 43.17 

43.01 

43.85 

1100.00  | 

1100.00  1 

[100.00  | 

100.00 

100.00 

1100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

Total  nitrogen  . . . . j 

2.789 

2.763| 

2.7961 

2.742 

2.622i 

2.718 

2.583 

2.716 

Protein  nitrogen 

2.2901 

2.256| 

2.317) 

2.220 

2.090 

1 2.184 

2.131 

2.213 

Non-protein  nitro- . 
gen  

! 1 
1 .499 

.507 

.479 

| .522 

.532 

| .534 

.452 

.504 

TABLE  2.— COMPOSITION  OF  MILO  MAIZE  MEAL,  1913. 


Digestion 

Trial  I, 

per  cent  ij 

First 
month, 
per  cent 

Second 
month, 
per  cent 

Digestion 

Trial  II, 
per  cent 

Digestion 

Trial  III, 
per  cent 

Third 

month, 

per  cent  | 

Fourth 
month, 
per  cent 

Average, 

per  cent  j 

Dry  matter  

86.11  | 

85.95  | 

85.97 

| 86.71 

87.44 

| 86.80  | 

88.29  1 

86.75 

Composition  of  dry 
matter: 

Ash  

1 

1 

1.95  | 

2.22  j 

1.73 

2.03 

1.61 

i 1.88 

2.04 

1.92 

Protein  1 

11.08  1 

11.24  | 

11.06  j 

11.24  | 

11.14  | 

[ 11.24 

11.55 

11.22 

Non -protein  j 

.62  | 

.50  j 

| .43 

I -55  j 

| .30 

| .65 

.59 

.52 

Crude  fiber  | 

2.35  | 

2.23  j 

2.09 

1.77  | 

1.83  [ 

[ 2.25 

2.17 

2.10 

Ether  extract  . . . . j 

2.81  | 

3.31  j 

3.42 

3.54  1 

2.67  J 

| 2.71 

2.47 

2.99 

Nitrogen-free  ex-.  . | 
tract  1 

1 

81.19  1 

80.50  I 

81.27 

80.87 

82.45  - 

1 81.27 

81.18 

81.25 

1 

100.00  1100.00  | 

100. 00~ 

[100.00  1 

I100.00 

|Too7oo " 

1 100.00 

ioo.oo 

1 

Total  nitrogen [ 

1.9051 

1.904] 

1.861 

1.914 

I.847' 

| 1.937] 

1.973 

1.906 

Protein  nitrogen . . . j 

1.7731 

1.7981 

1.769 

1.798 

1.783 

1 1.799] 

| 1.848 

1.795 

Non -protein  nitro- . ] 
gen  1 

.132| 

.106) 

.092 

.116 

.064| 

1 -138| 

.125 

.110 

RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGE’S. 


23 


TABLE  3.— COMPOSITION  OF  ALFALFA  HAY,  1915. 


Digestion 

Trial  I, 
per  cent 

First 

month,  | 

per  cent 

Digestion 

trial  II, 

per  cent 

Second 

month, 

per  cent 

Third 

month, 

per  cent 

Fourth 

month, 

per  cent 

Average, 

per  cent 

Dry  matter  ......... 

88.89 

92.08 

89.73 

90.97 

91.63 

90.82 

90.69 

Composition  of  dry 

matter: 

Ash  

7.69 

7.80 

8.17 

8.07 

8.80 

7.90 

8.07 

Protein  

10.80 

10.12 

11.37 

11.57 

12.35 

9.84 

11.01 

Non-protein  ....... 

1.91 

1.93 

1.66 

1.87 

1.97 

1.74 

1.85 

Crude  fiber  

38.49 

41.06 

37.20 

38.45 

37.36 

42.06 

39.10 

Ether  extract  ...... 

1.44 

1.24 

1.31 

1.41 

1.47 

1.18 

1.34 

Nitrogen-free  ex-.. 

tract  

39.67 

37.85 

40.29 

38.63 

38.05 

37.28 

38.63 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

Total  nitrogen  

2.134 

2.030 

2.173 

2.249 

2.395 

1.944 

2.154 

Protein  nitrogen  . . 

1.728 

1.619 

1.819 

1.851 

1.976 

1.574 

1.761 

Non-protein  nitro-. 

gen  

.406 

.411 

.354 

.398 

.419 

.370 

.393 

TABLE  4— COMPOSITION  OF  MILO  MAIZE  MEAL,  1915. 


Digestion 

Trial  I, 
per  cent 

Digestion 

Trial  II, 
per  cent 

Second 
month, 
per  cent 

Third 
month, 
per  cent 

Fourth 
month, 
per  cent 

Average, 
per  cent 

Dry  matter  

Composition  of  dry 
matter:  

86.25 

86.65 

87.16 

87.63 

88.91 

87.32 

Ash  

1.73 

1.61 

1.38 

1.52 

1.85 

1.62 

Protein  

12.11 

12.49 

12.72 

12.64 

12.49 

12.49 

Non-protein  

.27 

.46 

.32 

.33 

.32 

.3* 

Crude  fiber  ..... 

2.55 

2.67 

2.28 

2.44 

2.84 

2.56 

Ether  extract  

3.47 

3.05 

2.98 

2.54 

3.27 

3.06 

Nitrogen- free  extract 

79.87 

79.72 

80.32 

80.53 

79.23 

79.93 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

Total  nitrogen  

1.996 

2.096 

2.104 

2.092 

2.067 

2.071 

Protein  nitrogen  

1.938 

1.999 

2.035 

2.022 

1.998 

1.998 

Non-protein  nitrogen 

.058 

.097 

.069 

.070 

.069 

.073 

24 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


Proportions  of  Hay  and  Grain  in  Feed  Residues.  The  tables 

giving  the  composition  of  the  feed  residues  have  been  placed 
in  the  appendix,  where  they  can  readily  be  referred  to,  if 
desired.  In  this  connection  it  may  be  well  to  remark  that  the 
wide  differences  in  the  composition  of  the  various  residues. 
! may  be  traced  to  the  habits  or  appetites  of  the  various  indi- 
j vi duals.  Some  of  the  animals  habitually  rejected  the  coarse 

stems  of  the  hay  but  cleaned  up  the  fine  particles  of  the  ra- 
tion, whereas  others  cleaned  up  all  the  coarser  parts  of  the 
ration,  leaving  only  the  fine  dust;  while  still  others  showed 
j.  no  decided  preference  in  the  matter.  Evidently,  then,  the 
! feed  residues  did  not  contain  hay  and  grain  in  the  same  pro- 
portions as  fed  in  the  rations,  and  so  in  order  to  arrive  at 
a fairly  accurate  figure  for  the  amounts  of  alfalfa  and  milo 
i maize  meal  actually  consumed,  an  estimate  of  the  proportions 
I of  each  in  the  residues  was  made,  upon  the  basis  of  the  crude 
; fiber  content  of  the  residues  and  the  average  crude  fiber 
j content  of  the  feeds,  by  the  method  of  calculation  illustrated 
below. 

As  an  example,  the  feed  residue  from  steer  22  in  digestion 
trial  I in  1913,  is  chosen.  The  total  residue  was  6.5  pounds 
and  contained  27.6  per  cent  of  crude  fiber,  as  determined  by 
analysis.  The  so-called  rectangular*  method  of  calculation 
was  found  simple  and  convenient,  and  hence  was  employed 
as  shown  below: 


The  average  percentages  of  crude  fiber  in  the  alfalfa  and 
milo  maize  meal  are  written,  respectively,  opposite  the  upper 

•See  Van  Nostrand’s  Chemical  Annual,  third  issue,  1913,  p.  563. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


25 


and  lower  left-hand  corners  of  the  rectangle.  The  percentage 
of  crude  fiber  in  the  feed  residue  under  consideration  is  writ- 
ten at  the  intersection  of  the  diagonals.  The  difference  be- 
tween 27.6  and  29.62  is  written  at  the  lower  right-hand  cor- 
ner, and  the  difference  between  2.10  and  27.6  at  the  upper 
right-hand  corner  of  the  rectangle.  Reading  along  the  horizon- 
tal lines  of  the  diagram  from  left  to  right  it  will  be  found 
that  the  figures  at  the  right  represent  the  parts  by  weight  of 
alfalfa  and  milo,  respectively,  which  will  give  a mixture  con- 
taining 27.6  per  cent  of  crude  fiber.  From  this  the  per- 
centage of  alfalfa  in  the  feed  residue  is  easily  calculated  to 
be  92.66  per  cent,  as  follows: 

25.5 

X 100  = 92.66. 

27  52 

The  remainder,  of  course,  is  considered  as  hfiilo  maize. 

By  employing  this  method,  the  amounts  of  alfalfa  and 
milo  were  calculated  in  all  the  feed  residues  and  corrections 
applied  in  tables  30  to  33.  Of  course,  objections  can  be  rais- 
ed against  this  method  of  correcting  feed  residues,  but  it 
seemed  that  for  our  purpose  it  answered  the  need  better  than 
any  other  method  we  could  employ.  The  above  method  was 
employed  in  calculating  the  quantities  of  alfalfa  and  milo 
eaten,  by  months,  and  was  not  used  in  connection  with  the 
digestion  trials. 

Digestibility  of  Rations. 

Two  representative  steers  of  each  age  were  chosen  for 
the  digestion  trials;  that  is,  so  far  as  possible  one  steer  rep- 
resenting the  better  steers  in  the  group  was  selected,  and  an- 
other representing  the  poorer  ones.  In  making  the  selections, 
however,  the  disposition  and  tameness  of  the  individuals  had 
much  to  do  with  the  choice. 

Three  sets  of  digestion  trials  were  conducted  in  the  ex- 
periments of  1913.  Trial  I was  conducted  from  the  18th  to 


26 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


the  20th  days;  trial  II  from  the  68th  to  78th  days,  and  the 
third  trial  from  the  103rd  to  the  113th  days  of  the  feeding 
period.  The  steers  selected  were  numbers  28  and  30  of  the 
calves,  and  22  and  24  of  the  yearlings.  In  1915,  on  account 
of  the  hot  weather,  only  two  sets  of  digestion  trials  were  con- 
ducted. These  two  trials  correspond  to  the  first  and  second 
in  the  series  of  1913.  The  steers  used  in  the  tests  were  the 
following:  two-year-olds,  36  and  38;  and  three-year-olds  31 
and  33. 

In  trials  I and  III  of  1913,  steer  24  was  off  feed  so  badly 
that  the  results  from  him  will  be  omitted  in  considering  aver- 
ages. During  these  trials  his  feces  appeared  very  coarse  and 
fibrous,  having  an  odor  not  unlike  that  of  silage  mingled  with 
fecal  matter.  At  times  much  mucus  streaked  with  blood  was 
voided  with  the  feces.  During  trial  II  this  steer  ate  well 
and  appeared  normal,  so  it  was  thought  he  would  pass  through 
the  third  trial  in  good  condition. 

Steer  31  of  the  1915  trials  passed  through  the  first  di- 
gestion trial  very  well,  but  went  off  feed  badly  during  trial 
II,  refusing  more  than  one-third  of  the  feed  offered  him. 
This  was  evidently  due  to  the  bad  wire  punctures  of  the  stom- 
ach which  were  observed  when  he  was  slaughtered. 

In  the  first  set  of  trials  each  year  alfalfa  and  milo  maize 
meal  were  fed  in  the  proportions  of  2 of  the  former  to  1 of 
the  latter,  but  in  the  second  and  third  trials  equal  parts  of 
hav  and  grain  were  fed. 

The  composition  of  the  feeds  used  in  the  digestion  trials 
is  given  in  tables  1 to  4.  For  reference,  the  weights  of  feeds, 
feed  residues,  excreta,  composition  of  feeds  and  feed  resi- 
dues, feces,  nitrogen  in  urine  and  other  data  connected  with 
these  trials  are  given  in  tables  30  to  47  of  the  appendix. 

Tlie  coefficients  of  digestibility  were  determined  in  the 
usual  manner,  by  subtracting  the  average  amounts  of  the 
various  nutrients  voided  daily  by  the  different  individuals 
from  the  average  daily  intake  and  considering  the  difference 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


27 


as  representing  the  quantities  of  the  nutrients  digested  in  each 
instance.  From  the  quantities  ingested  and  digested,  the  per- 
centage digestibility  or  coefficients  of  digestibility  were  cal- 
culated. Since  metabolic  products  were  not  considered,  the 
coefficients  here  given  represent  apparent  digestibility. 

Since  different  lots  of  feed  were  used  during  the  two 
years,  the  coefficients  of  one  year  cannot  well  be  compared 
directly  with  those  of  the  other.  The  results  of  the  various 
digestion  trials  during  the  two  years  are  given  in  the  follow- 
ing tables : — 


28 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  5—  PERCENTAGE  DIGESTIBILITY  OF  RATIONS,  1913. 
Alfalfa  Hay  and  Milo  Maize  Meal. 


Dry  matter, 
per  cent 

Ash, 

per  cent 

Organic  matter, 
per  cent 

Protein, 
per  cent 

Non-protein, 
per  cent 

Crude  fiber, 

per  cent 

Nitrogen-free 
extract, 
per  cent 

Ether  extract, 
per  cent 

Total  nitrogen, 
per  cent 

Digestion  Trial  1. 

Yearlings. 

Steer  22 

66.15 

50.45 

67.36 

56.69 

100.001 

i J 

| 39.61| 

79.09 

47.55| 

1 • 

1 

63.17 

Steer  24  

63.08 

52.02 

63.86 

54.72 

100.00 

-2.84 

77.75 

48.28 

59.48 

Average  

64.62 

51.24 

65.61 

55.70 

100.00 

18.39 

78.42 

47.92 

61.33 

Calves. 

Steer  28  . . 

71.20 

57.94 

72.15 

58.39 

100.00 

45.27 

82.20 

51.08 

64.07 

Steer  30  

65.32 

48.88 

66.57 

54.95 

100.00 

41.55 

77.50 

44.57 

61.40 

Average  

68.26 

53.41 

69.36 

56.67 

100.00 

43.41 

79.85 

47.83 

62.74 

Average  of  all  ....... 

66.44 

52.33 

67.49 

56.19 

100.00 

30.90 

79.14 

47.88 

62.04 

Average,  omitting 
steer  24 

67.56 

52.42 

68.69 

56.68 

100.00 

42.141 

1 79.60 

47.73 

62.88 

Digestion  Trial  II. 
Yearlings. 

Steer  22  

69.22 

41.96 

70.56 

55.43 

100.00 

43.86 

| 79.67 

61.25 

60.78 

Steer  24  

69.76 

39.60 

71.35 

53.841100.00 

50.37 

80.42 

58.69 

59.93 

Average  

69.49 

40.78 

70.96 

54.64 

ilOO.OO 

47.12 

I 80.04 

59.97 

I 60.36 

Calves. 

lioo.oo 

Steer  28 

68.45 

37.05 

70.16 

57.91 

41.28 

1 80.47 

59.85 

63.73 

Steer  30  . 

67.85 

42.38 

69.21 

49.97|100.00 

51.24 

| 77.89 

54.82 

56.63 

Average  

68.15 

39.72 

69.69 

53.94 

1100  00 

46. 261 

1 79.18 

57.34 

60.18 

Average  of  all  ...... 

68.82 

40.25 

70.33 

54.29|100.00 

46.691 

| 79.61 

58.66 

60.27 

Digestion  Trial  III.  1 

Yearlings. 

Steer  22  1 

| 71.80 

41.99 

73.18 

I 

1 

56.061100.00 

1 

1 

! 39.72 

! 

i 

| 82.33 

I 

| 51.79 

60.47 

Steer  24 

71.33 

41.16 

73.11 

53.76|100.00 

I 36.32 

| 84.00 

j 42.67 

58.98 

Average  

71.57 

41.58 

73.15 

54.91 

1100  00 

38.02 

| 83.17 

1 47.23 

i 

59.73 

Calves. 

Steer  28 

69.03 

45.82 

70.05 

52.831100.00 

36.66 

1 81.44 

49.21 

59.20 

Steer  30  

69.59|  49.02 

70.75 

| 52.20 

tioo.oo 

37.81 

! 81.10 

45.82 

| 57.99 
j 

Average  

69.31 

\ 47.42 

70.40 

| 52.52 

100:00 

37.24 

81.27 

47.52 

| 58.60 

j 

Average  of  all  

70.44!  44.50 

71.78 

| 53.72 

l 

100.00 

37.63 

82.22 

47.38 

| 59.17 

Average,  omitting 
steer  24  

I 70.14 

1 

| 45  61 

71.33 

1 

| 53.70 

1100.00 

| 38.06 

l i 

I 81.62 

1 

| 

! 48.94 
1 

59.22 

Average,  second  and^ 
third  trials  

i 

| 69.63 

42.11 

70.74 

1 1 

1 53.231100.00 

l i 

1 

I 42.54 

1 

1 

I 80.92 

1 

! 53.06 
1 

59  72 

! 

Average,  second  a.nd| 
third  trials,  omittingl 
steer  24  in  trial  TIT... 

f 

1 

1 69.40 

1 42.55' 

-3 

O 

Li 

1 

i i 

I 54.031100.00 

i 

1 42.99 

t 

I 80.47 

1 

1 

I 54.49 

.59.82 

TABLE  6.— PERCENTAGE  DIGESTIBILITY  OF  RATIONS,  1915. 
Alfalfa  Hay  and  Milo  Maize  Meal. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES.  29 


luao  aad 

‘uaSoaiju  iejoj, 

j ■-  .. 

58.13 

60.04; 

| 59.09 

60.11 

65.79 

62.95 

61.02 

69.64 

62.58 

66.11 

60.44 

60.31 

60.38 

61.11 

luaa  aad 

‘louiixa  aaqia 

53.53 

56. IS 

54.86 

60.53 

60.74 

60.64 

57.75 

71.42 

65.21 

68.32 

63.54 

59.54 

61.54 

62.76 

?uaa  aad 
‘joeaixa 
«»aaj-tia3oa;iN 

72.40 
| 76.40 

| 74.40 

| 77.37 

80.79 

79.08 

76.74 

82.01 

| 78.14 

80.08 

! 77.91 

77.66 

77.79 

77.90 

*uao  aad 

‘aaqij  apnaQ 

33.57 
37.59  j 

35.58 

40.27 

39.50 

39.89 

37.74 

31.23 

34.90 

33.07 

34.66 

42.95 

38.81 

37.50 

}uaa  aad 

‘ujajoad-uojvi 

. 

1 100.00 

[ 100.00 

| 100.00 

i 100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 
| 100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

}uaa  aad 

•uja^oa^ 

! 

I 51.29 

| 53.59 

| * 52.44 

| 53.57 

60.18 

56.88 

54.66 

66.03 

1 58.13 

62.08 

55.71 

55.55 

55.63 

56.46 

luao  aad 

‘aaiyetu  opreSao 

to  o oiio  eq  to  <moo  o tj<  ci  cq 

OOlT5t~  Cl  Tf  <M  <J1  O to  00  CO  LO  LT. 

oo  <m‘  o co  to  io  oq  o tO  oo  < to  . tc 

LO  CD  CD  CD  CD  CD  CD  t—  CD  ^d  £p  'tp-  ' CD 

luao  aad 

•qsy 

oirH  o f-  o crt>  io  tooi  oo  co  1 to  ' tt 

lOOO  <M  CO  OO  cp>  to  iO  to  iftCO  "tf  oc 

oo  -h  o to  th  ci  ci  t-  co  ooooi.  od 

cq  CO  CO  CO  't'  CO  CO  -C  CO  -<3"  ^co-  co  co 

luao  aad 

‘aawBui  Aj(j 

57.11 

60.79 

58.95 

62.42 

65.03 

63.73 

^61.34 

68.46 

64.96 

66.71 

k 1 

64.59-  1 
65.91 

65.25 

65.15 

1 

Digestion  Trial  1. 

Three-year-olds. 

Steer  31  

Steer  33  

Average  

Two-year-olds. 

Steer  36  

Steer  38  

Average  

Average  of  all  

Digestion  Trial  II. 

Three-year-olds. 

Steer  31  

Steer  33  

Average  

Two-year-olds. 

Steer  36  

Steqr  38  . 

Average  

Avenge  of  all  omitting  cfee*-  31  

30 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


Effect  of  Age  and  Individuality  of  Animals  on  Digestion  Co- 
efficients. To  facilitate  the  consideration  of  the  relative 
digestive  powers  of  the  various  individuals  and  ages  of  steers 
with  special  reference  to  any  influence  of  age  and  individ- 
uality upon  the  same,  the  differences  between  the  coeffi- 
cients obtained  with  individuals  of  the  same  age  and  the  aver- 
age coefficients  of  steers  of  different  ages  are  given  in  the 
following  tables : — 


TABLE  7.— DIFFERENCES  IN  DIGESTION  COEFFICIENTS,  1913. 


Difference  above 

other  coefficient  or  coefficients 

Calves 

^ earlings 

Steer  28 

Steer  30 

Steer  22 

Steer  24 

Calves 

Yearlings 

Digestion  Trial  1. 

1 

5.88 

3.07 

2.11 

* 

Ash  

9.06 

1.57 

Z.96 

Organic  matter  . . 
Protein  

5.58 

3.44 

3.50 

1.97 

2.00 

.02 

Non- protein  

Crude  fiber  

3.72 

3.80 

Nitrogen-free  ex- 
tract   

4.70 

1.34 

.76 

Ether  extract  .... 
Total  nitrogen  . . 

6.51 

2.67 

3.69 

.73 

.28 

.43 

Digestion  T rial  II. 

| 

I 

Dry  matter  

.60  4 

.54  i 

1.34 

Ash  

... 

2. "6 

I 

1.06 

Organic  matter  . 
Protein  

.95 

7.94 

1.59 

.79  1 

I 

1.27 

.70 

Non-protein  

Crude  fiber  

9.96 

6.51 

1 

'.86 

Nitrogen -free  ex- 
tract   

2.58 

.75 

1 

1 

.86 

Ether  extract  . . . 
Total  nitrogen  . . . 

5.03 

7.10 

2.56 

.85 

1 

1 

| 

2.63 

.18 

Digestion  Trial  II 

| 

• 

Dry  matter  

56 

.47 

i 

2.49 

Ash  

3.20 

.83 

| 5.43 

2.78 

3.54 

Organic  matter  . 
Protein  

63 

70 

.07 

2.30 

1 

1 

Non-protein  

1 

2.48 

Crude  fiber  

1.15 

3.40 

1 

Nitrogen -free  ex- 

34 

1.67 

1 

! 

1.06 

Ether  extract 
Total  nitrogen 

3 39 
1.21 

9.12 

1.49 

1 

1 

4.27 

1.87 

♦As  steer  : 
steer  22  alone  are 

24  was  badly  off  feed  during 
used  in  comparisons  in  tria 

these  trials,  the  results  wrth 
s T and  ITT 

RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


31 


TABLE  8.— -DIFFERENCES  IN  DIGESTION  COEFFICIENTS,  1915. 


Difference  above  other  coefficient  or  coefficients 


Two-year-olds 

Three-year-olds 

Two-year- 

olds 

Three- 

year-olds 

to 

u 

0> 

<o 

m 

Steer  38 

Steer  31 

Steer  33 

Digestion  Trial  1. 

1 

1 

1 

Dry  matter  

2.61  | 

1 

3.68 

4.78 

Ash  

| 5.43  | 

1 

3.22 

8.89 

Organic  matter  . . 

I 2.46  | 

3.72 

4.52 

Protein  

I 6.61 

2.30 

4.44 

Non-protein  

| .... 

Crude  fiber  

.77 

| 4.02 

4.31 

Nitrogen-free  ex- 

tract   

3.42 

4.00 

4.68 

Ether  extract  .... 

’ .21 

2.65 

5.78 

Total  nitrogen  . . . 

5.68 

1.91 

3.86 

Digestion  Trial  II. 

Dry  matter  

1.32 

3.50 

.29 

* 

Ash  

2.26 

12.17 

1.87 

Organic  matter  . . 

1.50 

3.64 

1.21 

Protein  

.16 

7.90 

2.50 

Non-protein  

Crude  fiber  

8.29 

3.67 

3.91 

Nitrogen-free  ex- 

tract   

.25 

3.87 

.35 

Ether  extract  . . . 

4.00 

6.21 

3.67 

Total  nitrogen  . . . 

.13 

1 

7.06 

2 20 

♦In  digestion  trial  II  the  coefficients  from  steer  33  alone  are  com- 
pared with  the  averages  of  steers  36  and  38.  as  steer  31  was  badly  off  feed 
during  this  trial. 


From  a cursory  inspection  of  the  data  in  table  7,  it  ap- 
pears that  steer  28  digested  his  rations  decidedly  better  than 
steer  22  in  trial  I.  In  the  second  trial  the  advantage  is  still 
with  steer  28,  although  with  reference  to  dry  matter  and  or- 
ganic matter,  it  is  not  large.  Comparing  the  results  for  dry 
and  organic  matter  in  trials  IT  and  III,  it  will  be  seen  that  in 
trial  II  the  advantage  is  with  steer  28,  whereas  in  trial  III  it  is 
with  steer  30;  the  advantage  in  either  case  being  about  the 
same. 


A comparison  of  steers  22  and  24  makes  it  appear  that 
steer  22  digested  his  rations  better  than  steer  24  in  trials,  I 
and  ITT,  but  when  it  is  recalled  that  steer  24  was  off  feed  and 


\ 32  THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 

apparently  having  digestive  disturbances,  the  comparison  is 
of  little  value.  In  trial  II,  when  steer  24  appeared  normal, 
the  results  are  mixed  in  character,  with  no  decided  advantage 
either  way. 

Steer  38  of  the  two-year-olds  digested  the  dry  and  organic 
matter  of  the  ration  better  than  36  in  both  digestion  trials, 
but  when  the  individual  nutrients  are  considered,  rather  wide 
variations  are  found. 

Steer  33  in  digestion  trial  I digested  his  ration,  as  a 
whole,  noticeably  better  than  steer  31 ; but  in  trial  II,  when 
steer  31  was  markedly  off  feed,  the  results  are  practically 
reversed. 

While  it  appears  in  some  instances  that  certain  indiv- 
iduals digested  their  rations  better  than  the  others,  the  re- 
sults are  not  consistent,  and  when  the  various  other  influ- 
ences 'affecting  the  results  are  considered  it  seeing  doubtful 
if  any  real  difference  in  digestive  powers  is  indicated  between 
individuals  of  the  same  age. 

A comparison  of  the  differences  in  the  average  coeffi- 
cients from  different  ages  of  steers  shows  no  conclusive  dif- 
ference in  favor  of  one  age  over  another.  The  comparisons, 
of  course,  are  not  very  satisfactory,  as  in  trials  I and  III  in 
1913  the  averages  of  coefficients  from  two  calves  are  com- 
pared with  those  of  only  one  steer,  and  a similar  comparison 
is  made  in  trial  II  in  1915. 

On  the  whole,  there  appears  to  be  as  great,  or  even 
greater,  differences  between  the  coefficients  of  individuals 
of  the  same  age  as  between  average  coefficients  of  the  steers 
of  different  ages. 

In  the  case  of  the  calves  and  yearlings  it  appears  that 
the  yearlings  which  had  passed  through  at  least  one  of  the 
semi-starvation  or  submaintenance  periods  digested  their  ra- 
tions as  well  as  the  calves  which  had  not  experienced  any  such 
period.  A comparison  of  the  results  with  the  two-year-olds 
arid  three-year-olds  indicates  that  in  trial  I the  former  di- 


RANGE  STEERS  OP  DIFFERENT  AGES 


33 


gested  their  rations  better  than  the  latter;  but  in  the  second 
trial  there  is  not  much  difference,  although  it  lies  chiefly  in- 
favor of  the  two-year  olds. 

The  data  under  consideration1  afford  no  conclusive  evi  - 
dence of  any  impairment  of  the  digestive  powers  of  the  ant 
mals  because  of  these  submaintenance  periods,  as  the  varia 
tions  observed  might  be  due  to  other  causes.  In  general,  the 
coefficients  of  digestibility  of  the  dry  matter  in  the  trial 
with  the  older  steers  are  lower  than  those  from  the  calves 
and  yearlings  for  corresponding  periods ; but  this  is  probably 
due  to  the  coarser  hay  fed  to  the  former. 

Effect  of  Amount  of  Feed  on  Digestion  Coefficients*. 

As  to  whether  or  not  some  of  the  variations  in  the  digestion 
coefficients  observed  among  the  various  individuals,  and  trials, 
might  be  ascribed  to  differences  in  the  amounts  of  feed  con- 
sumed will  be  considered  briefly  in  connection  with  the  data 
of  tables  9 and  10. 


34 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  9.— DRY  MATTER  OF  ALFALFA  HAY  AND  MILO  MAIZE  MEAL 
EATEN  IN  DIGESTION  TRIALS,  1913. 


Dry  matter 

consumed 

per 

day 

<n 

ft 

c 

< v 

ft 

> 

O 

ft 

o W> 

®,G  rt 
be  be* 

S 05 

§®a 

cj-a'g 

£ 3 ft 

: £ft 

u © ft 

G 

G 

© £ ft 

h ft 

^ © ft 

> o 

© o 

© > O 

< ft 

Pm  a 

ks  ft 

Digestion  Trial  1. 

1 

Yearlings. 

Steer  22 

745.5 

15.979 

21.434 

Steer  24 

739.0 

7.684 

10.398 

Calves. 

Steer  28  

646.0 

8.372 

15.333 

Steer  30  

445.0 

9.054 

20.346 

Digestion  Trial  II. 

Yearlings. 

Steer  22  

900.6 

19.339 

21.473 

Steer  24  

764.7 

10.923 

14.284 

Calves. 

Steer  28  

667.0 

10.924 

16.376 

Steer  30  

514.5 

8.770 

17.046 

Digestion  Trial  III. 

1 

Yearlings. 

Steer  22  

986.2 

16.533 

i 16.764 

Steer  24  

813.7 

I 8.712 

I 10.707 

Calves. 

[ 

Steer  28  

739.5 

12.731 

1 17.216 

Steer  30  

_ 1 

575.7 

l 

9.816 

I 17.051 

1 

RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


35 


TABLE  10.— DRV  MATTER  OF  ALFALFA  HAY  AND  MILO  MAIZE  MEAL 
EATEN  IN  DIGESTION  TRIALS,  1915. 


Dry  matter  consumed  per 

d* 

iy. 

*o 

c 

3 

O . 

a £ 

■O  n 

o bfl  oi 

111 

2 a 

— p 

^ > 3 

<3^  ^ O 

> > a 

. o 
<u  a 

% % S 

Oh 

fL  §_ 

Digestion  Trial  1. 

Three -.year-olds. 

Steer  31  

999.1 

13.965 

13.978 

Steer  33  

1080.1 

17.463 

16.168 

Two-year-olds. 

Steer  36  

922.1 

13.097 

14.203 

Steer  38  

880.0 

13.970 

15.875 

Digestion  Trial  II. 

1 

Three-year-olds. 

Steer  31  

1058.1 

12.382 

11.702 

Steer  33  

1191.7 

21.387 

17.947 

Two-year-olds 

1 

1 

1 

Steer  36  

1028.5 

19.443 

18.904 

Steer  38  

972.7 

1 

I 19.431  1 

1 • 1 

19.976 

Various  investigators  have  found  that  with  an  increase 
in  the  ration  there  results  a decrease  in  apparent  digestibility. 
If  the  data  of  the  foregoing  tables  are  considered  with  this 
in  mind,  it  will  be  seen  that  in  digestion  trial  I steer  28  con- 
sumed about  one-fourth  less  feed  per  1000  pounds  live  weight 
than  steer  30,  and  the  resulting  coefficients  are  higher  than 
those  of  steer  30.  In  trial  II  steer  28  consumed  nearly  as 
much  feed  as  steer  30,  with  the  result  that  the  former  steer 
has  but  little  advantage  over  the  latter,  as  regards  dry  and 
ofganic  matter;  while  in  trial  III,  where  stem  28  consumed 
slightjv  more  feed  than  steer  30,  the  advantage  is  with  the  lat- 
ter. so  far  as  dry  and  organic  matter  arc  concerned. 

In  trial  II,  steer  22  consumed  about  one-third  more  feed 
per  1000  pounds  live  weight  than  steer  24,  and  the  advantage 


36 


nirc  UTILIZATION  OF  FFFI)  HY 


is  in  favor  of  the  latter  as  far  as  dry  matter;  organic  matter, 
crude  fiber,  and  nitrogen  free  extract  are  concerned;  thus 
agreeing,  in  a general  way,  with  the  results  obtained  with 
the  calves  in  showing  a tendency  of  the  coefficients  to  vary 
inversely  with  the  amount  of  feed. 

However,  a comparison  of  the  relation  of  the  amount 
of  feed  and  the  resulting  coefficients  in  the  digestion  trials 
of  1915  give  results  that  are  almost  directly  opposed  to  those 
of  1913.  Of  course,  our  comparisons  are  not'  the  same  as 
comparisons  of  different  amounts  of  feed  and  the  resulting 
coefficients  with  the  same  individuals  in  successive  trials,  but 
evidently  the  observed  variations  in  the  coefficients  cannot 
!>e  accounted  for  through  differences  in  the  amounts  of  feed 
consumed. 

A METHOD  OF  CALCULATING  THE  PERCEN  TAGE  OIG’ES  TI8M.- 
ITY  OF  THE  COMPONENTS  OF  t H F.  RATIONS. 

For  the  energy  calculations  it  was  desirable  that  the  di- 
gestibility of  the  components  of  the  rations,  namely,  alfalfa  hay 
and  niilo  maize  meal,  should  be  calculated.  Since  the  di- 
gestibility of  the  feeds  composing  the  rations  had  not  been 
determined,  except  as  fed  in  combination,  the  usual  method  of 
subtracting  the  digestible  nutrients  of  one  feed  from  the  total 
nutrients  digested  in  the  mixed  ration,  and  considering  the  re- 
mainder as  being  digested  from  the  grain,  was  not  applicable. 
Attempts  to  apply  some  of  the  average  coefficients  of  digest- 
ibility of  alfalfa  as  determined  in  previous  experiments  proved 
unsatisfactory,  on  account  of  differences  in  the  composition 
of  the  hays  fed  in  the  various  experiments;  and  it  therefore 
became  necessary  to  resort  to  another  method. 

In  our  experiments  we  had  fed  alfalfa  and  milo  maize 
meal  in  different  proportions  in  at  least  two  trials,  and-' si  lice 
the  milo  maize  apparently  was  more  digestible  than  the  alfalfa, 
as  was  indicated  by  the  higher  coefficients  of  digestibility 
when  the  proportions  of  milo  were  increased,  it  seemed  alto- 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


37 


gether  feasible  that  the  digestibility  of  the  components  of  the 
ration  could  be  calculated  by  taking  into  consideration  the 
effect  of  the  varying  proportions  of  the  constituents  of  the 
ration  upon  the  resulting  coefficients. 

As  applied  to  rations  composed  of  two  different  feeds,  the 
problem  may  be  stated  as  follows : To  calculate  the  coef- 
ficients of  digestibility  of  the  components  of  similar  rations 
from  the  results  of  digestion  trials  in  which  the  components 
have  been  fed  in  combination,  but  in  different  proportions. 

The  known  quantities  are  the  amounts  of  feed  consumed 
in  each  digestion  trial  and  the  resulting  coefficients;  and  the 
-unknown  quantities,  the  percentage  digestibility  of  each  of 
the  components.  In  general  terms,  the  problem  may  be  stat- 
ed algebraically  by  representing  the  unknown  quantities  by 
letters  x and  y and  the  known  quantities  by  letters  a , a\  b,  b\ 
etc.,  as  shown  below : 

Let  .r  Percentage  digestibility  of  alfalfa. 

Let  y Percentage  digestibility  of  milo  maize  meal. 

Let  a Grams  of  alfalfa  eaten  in  digestion  trial  I. 

Let  b Grams  of  mi]o  maize  meal  eaten  in  digestion 
trial  T. 

Let  a'  Grams  of  alfalfa  eaten  in  digestion  trial  II. 

Let  b 1 Grams  of  milo  maize  meal  eaten  in  digestion 
trial  IT. 

Let  c Percentage  digestibility  as  determined  in  trial  I 

Let  c'  Percentage  digestibility  as  determined  in  trial  II. 

From  the  foregoing  statements  the  following  equations 
were  formulated 

( 1 ) ax  -f-  by 

a +T 

(2)  alx  4-  by 

’ — cl 

a1  -f- 

To  illustrate  the  application  of  the  foregoing  equations 


38 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


to  the  problem  at  hand,  the  calculation  of  the  coefficients  of 
digestibility  of  the  dry  matter  of  the  rations  fed  in  the  di- 
gestion trials  of  1913  will  suffice. 

In  the  first  set  of  trials,  an  average  of  3217.3  grams 
of  alfalfa  and  1833.6  grams  of  milo  maize  meal  were  eaten 
on  a dry  matter  basis,  and  the  resulting  coefficient  for  the  dry 
matter  of  the  ration  was  67.56.  Similarly,  in  the  second 
set  of  trials  the  steers  ate  on  an  average  2670.5  grams  of  alfal- 
fa and  3098.9  grams  of  milo  maize  meal,  and  the  resulting 
coefficient  in  this  case  was  69.40. 

Substituting  these  known  values  in  the  foregoing  equa- 
tions, the  values  of  * and  y are  found  by  solving  the  equa- 
tions as  shown  below. 


(1) 

3217.3*  + 1833.6y 

5050.9 

.6756 

(2) 

2670.5*  + 3098.9? 

5769.4 

.6940 

(1) 

3217.3*  + 1833.6?  = 

3412.388 

(2) 

2670.5*  + 3098.9?  = 

4003.964 

(1) 

(2) 

1.755*  + ? = 1.8610 
.862*  + ? = 1.2921 

£93*  = .5689 

x = .6371 

y = .7429 

From  the  calculated  values  of  * and  3',  then,  it  appears' that 
the  coefficients  of  dig't stibility  of  the  dry  n alter  of  the  alfalfa 


and  milo  maize  meal  hese  trials  were  63.71  and  74.29, 
respectively. 

The  method  of  uk  fciori  just  com- 

plicated as  it  appears  at  first  sight, 

probably  simpler  and  short*  1 than  the  hods  employ- 

: Hi 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


39 


ed  for  the  purpose.  In  addition,  the  method  affords  a means 
of  calculating  the  digestibility  of  the  feeds  composing  the  ra- 
tions in  cases  where  these  feeds  have  been  fed  in  combina- 
tion but  in  different  proportions  in  successive  digestion  trials, 
and  where  no  determinations  on  the  digestibility  of  any  of  the 
components  of  the  rations  have  been  made  separately.  In 
this  method  of  calculation,  as  in  others  of  this  sort,  the  as- 
sumption is  that  the  digestibility  of  the  feeds  composing  the 
rations  remains  unchanged,  although  the  proportions  of  the 
different  feeds  in  the  rations  are  varied. 

PERCENTAGE  DIGESTIBILITY  OF  THE  COMPONENTS  OF  THE 
RATIONS. 

The  coefficients  of  digestibility  of  the  alfalfa  and  mito 
maize  meal  fed  in  the  experiments  of  1913  and  1915  were  cal- 
culated in  the  manner  just  illustrated  and  are  given  in  the 

following  table: — 


TABLE  11.— COEFFICIENTS  OF  DIGESTI  Bl  LITY  OF  THE  COMPON- 
ENTS OF  THE  RATIONS. 


Owing  to  the  wide  variations  i fficients  for  the 

ash  in  the  different  trials,  no  satisfactory  results  could  h 
tained  by  the  foregoing  method  of  cal  1 don, 
they  have  been  omitted  from  the  tabic 


0 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


DIGESTIBLE.  NUTRIENTS  IN  FEEDS 

['he  percentage  of  digestible  nutrients  in  the  feeds  of 
the  two  years  have  been  calculated  from  the  average  com- 
position of  the  feeds  as  given  in  tables  1 to  4 by  means  of  the 
coefficients  given  in  the  preceding  table. 


’ ( ABLE:  12.  PERCENTAGES  OF  DIGESTIBLE  NUTRIENTS  IN  DRY 
MATTER  OF  FEEDS. 


Alfalfa  hay, 

1913, 
per  cent 

Milo  maize 

Jmeal,  1913,  1 

! per  cent 

Alfalfa  hay. 

1915,  ,| 

per  cent 

Milo  maize 
meal,  1915, 
per  cent 

Dry  matter  

63.71 

74.29 

53.81 

76.88 

Organic  matter  

58.42 

74.60 

51.27 

75.65 

Protein  

8.48 

5.21 

5.59 

7.72 

Non -protein  

2.37 

.52 

1.85 

.34 

Crude  fiber  

12.23 

1.42 

14.84 

.79 

Other  extract  

.44 

1.89 

.54 

2.23 

Nitrogen -free  extract  .... 

33.77 

66.65 

28.28 

64.21 

Total  nitrogen  

1.850 

.942 

1.310 

1.272 

ESTIMATED  ENERGY  VALUES  OF  FEEDS 


Although  having  previously  pointed  out  that  the  metab- 
olizable energy  per  unit  of  digestible  organic  matter  in  feeds 
of  the  same  class  is  remarkably  constant,  Armsby*  has  recent- 
ly published  a set  of  values  for  the  digestible  organic  matter 
in  feeds  of  different  classes,  to  be  used  in  estimating  the  me 
tabolizable  energy  where  no  direct  determinations  have  been 
made.  ; 

As  the  hays  fed  during  the  two  feedings  differed  con- 
siderably in  composition,  it  was  considered  better  to  calculate 
the  metabolizable  energy  from  the  digestible  organic  matter 
by  means  of  the  factors  suggested,  rather  than  using  a fixed 
average  value  for  the  two  years.  The  metabolizable  energy 
of  the  milo  maize  meal  was  estimated  in  the  same  way. 

On  page  484  of  the  publication  just  cited,  Armsby  gives 

♦Armsby,  H.  P.,  “Net  Energy  Values  of  Feeding  Stuffs  for 
Cattle,”  in  Journal  of  Agricultural  Research,  Vol.  TTI,  No.  6,  p.  453. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES 


41 


the  net  energy  values  of  a number  of  feeding  stuffs,  from 
which  it  may  be  calculated  that  the  net  energy  of  alfalfa  and 
maize  meal  is  39,15  and  56.9  per  cents,  respectively,  < < the 
metabolizable  energy  in  each  case. 

The  energy  values  of  the  feeds,  calculated  in  the  manner 
just  indicated,  are  given  in  table  13  The  net  energy  value 
of  milo  maize  has  been  calculated  by  assuming  the  same  per- 
centage availability  of  the  metabolizable  energy  as  that  caS 
culated  for  maize  meal,  from  the  publication  just  cited. 


'I  ABLE  13.— ESTIMATED  ENERGY  VALUE  OF  FEEDS  PER  POUND  OF 
DRY  MATTER. 


I1 

II 

Metabolizable  j( 
energy, 
therms 

ii 

Net 

energy, 

therms 

Alfalfa,  1913  

.9275  | .3631 

.8140  | 3187 

1.3197  j 7509 

1.3383  j 7615 

Alfalfa,  1915  

Milo  maize  meal,  1913  .... 
Milo  maize  meal,  1915 

GAINS  IN  LIVE  WEIGHTS 

The  steers  used  in  the  experiments  of  1913  were  de 
livered  at  the  Experiment  Station  about  the  middle  of  No- 
vember, 1912,  and  were  put  into  the  individual  feed  lots  on 
November  26.  From  this  date  until  the  experiments  started, 
January  2,  1913,  the  steers  were  fed  a light  but  sufficient  ra- 
tion to  keep  them  in  good  condition,  without  making  appre 
ciable  gains.  About  fifteen  days  before  beginning  the  regular 
feeding  periods  small  amounts  of  milo  maize  meal 
were  fed,  so  as  to  accustom  the  animals  to  the  grain. 
The  quantity  of  grain  was  increased  as  the  date  for 
starting  the  experiment  drew  near,  so  that  at  the  time  of 
starting  the  feeding  periods  proper,  the  steers  might  be  con 
sidered  as  being  in  equilibrium  with  their  rations.  This  pre 


42 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


liminary  period  was  necessary  in  order  to  tame  the  steers  suf- 
ficiently to  use  them  in  the  digestion  trials. 

The  steers  used  in  the  experiments  of  1915  were  deliv- 
red  at  the  Experiment  Station  during  November  and  the 
first  part  of  December.  They  were  dehorned  December  11, 
and  in  order  to  allow  their  wounds  to  heal,  no  effort  was  made 
to  tame  the  steers  until  after  January  6,  1915,  when  they 
were  removed  to  the  individual  feeding  lots  used  in  the  ex- 
periments. The  wounds  of  steers  31  and  39  became  infested 
with  worms,  thus  requiring  treatment  for  some  time. 

Owing  to  the  slowness  with  which  the  wounds  healed, 
and  the  fact  that  these  steers  were  wilder  than  those  fed  in 
1913,  a longer  time  was  required  for  taming  the  steers  suffi- 
ciently to  begin  the  experiment.  These  steers,  like  those  of 
1913,  were  fed  only  enough  to  keep  them  in  condition  during 
this  preliniinary  period. 

Before  considering  the  actual  gains  in  live  weight,  it  may 
be  well  to  consider  the  diagrams  showing  graphically  the  gains 
of  the  various  steers,  during  the  experiments. 

The  points  in  the  diagrams  for  the  calves  and  yearlings 
at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  and  at  the  end  of  each 
30  days,  are  the  results  of  averages  of  three  weighings  on  suc- 
cessive days,  whereas  the  intermediate  points  are  the  results 
of  single  weighings  by  10-day  periods;  but  in  the  diagrams 
of  the  weights  for  1915,  all  points  were  determined  by  aver- 
aging  the  weights  for  three  successive  days. 

Calves.  Considering  first  the  calves,  it  will  be  noticed 
from  ti  e vgam  (Fig.  1)  that^steer  26  made  but  small  and 
v ' ’ t ii  regular  gains.  This  was  the  poorest  steer  in 

bu  ich,  and  could  not  be  induced  to  eat  enough  to  make 
satisfactory  gains. 

Steer  27  although  a better  steer,  was  especially  subject 
! consequently  irregular  in  his  eating.  From 
110th  days  he  made  rather  regular  gains,  but 
• ; ' ! during  the  last  ten  days  of  the  experiment.  When 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


43 


slaughtered  a very  noticeable  gritty  deposit,  apparently  chiefly 
inorganic,  was  found  on  the  leaf  like  papillae  on  the  inner 
walls  of  the  paunch.  The  cause  of  the  deposit  and  what  con- 
nection it  may  have  had  with  the  tendency  of  this  steer  to 
bloat,  we  cannot  say;  but  that  there  is  a connection  seems 
certain,  as  similar  deposits,  though  not  so  marked,  have  been 
observed  in  other  individuals  with  this  same  tendency. 

The  remaining  steers  of  this  group,  although  showing 
considerable  irregularity  in  their  gains  during  the  early  part 
of  the  period,  made  fairly  regular  gains  later.  Steer  28  was 
found  to  have  a piece  of  baling  wire  through  the  back  part  of 
his  tongue,  when  slaughtered,  but  apparently  this  had  not 
caused  much  trouble,  as  he  was  one  of  the  best  steers  in 
the  group. 


44  THE  UTILIZATION  OP  FEED  BY 


HANCtK  stffks  of  DIFFERENT  AGE’S. 


45 


Yearlings.  A glance  at  the  diagram  (Fig.  2)  shows  at 
once  that  steer  24  made  very  poor  gains,  tie  went  off  feed 
during  the  first  and  third  digestion  trials  and  apparently 
never  really  thrived  during  the  whole  period.  No  definite 
cause  can  be  assigned  for  this. 

Steer  21  shows  considerable  irregularity  during  the  first 
month,  but  thereafter  gained  regularly  until  the  fourth  month 
was  reached.  During  this  month  he  was  irregular  in  his  eat- 
ing and  made  no  gains  in  weight.  This  falling  off  in  the 
rate  of  gain  during  the  fourth  month  was  evidently  due  to 
wire  punctures  through  the  walls  of  the  honey-comb,  as  two 
punctures  were  found  when  the  steer  was  slaughtered. 

Steer  22  made  by  far  the  best  gains  of  any  of  the  steers, 
being  the  lightest  steer  in  the  group  at  the  start  and.  finish- 
ing nearly  as  heavy  as  steer  23,  the  heaviest  of  the  year 
lings. 

Steer  23  made  fairly  regular  gains  throughout  the  per- 
iod, while  steer  25  was  irregular  during  the  early  part  of  the 
period  and  a little  irregular  toward  the  end 


46 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES 


47 


Two-year-olds.  In  this  group,  as  in  the  others,  there 

is  an  “off  steer the  one  in  this  group  being  steer  37.  This 
steer,  like  No.  27  of  the  calves,  bloated  frequently  and  there- 
fore would  not  eat  enough  to  make  satisfactory  gains.  As  in 
the  case  of  steer  27,  a gritty  deposit  on  the  inner  walls  of 
the  paunch  was  observed,  although  it  was  not  as  marked  as 
in  the  former  case. 

The  most  noticeable  feature  in  regard  to  the  other  steers 
is  the  general  parallelism  of  the  gains.  Upon  close  inspec- 
tion it  will  be  observed  that  the  steers  kept  in  the  open  feed 
lots  throughout  the  period  made  better  gains  than  the  ones 
used  in  the  digestion  trials.  These  greater  gains  appear  to  be 
due  to  advantage  gained  through  increasing  the  rations 
while  the  other  steers  were  on  the  digestion  trials. 


4 S 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


FIGURF  3. 


\STEER30, 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGEJS 


49 


Three-year^oids.  That  this  was  an  unsatisfactory  lot  of 
steers  for  experimental  purposes  has  been  commented  upon 
previously,  but  a glance  at  the  diagram  brings  this  out  more 
clearly.  It  will  be  observed  that  they  differed  greatly  as 
regards  live  weights  at  the  start,  and  the  lack  of  uniformity 
of  type,  condition,  etc.,  has  already  been  mentioned.  From 
such  a lot  of  steers  one  could  not  expect  very  satisfactory 
results,  but  it  was  thought  they  would  show  up*  a little  bet- 
ter than  they  did. 

Steer  35  is  the  “off  steer’’  of  this  lot,  so  far  as  gains 
are  concerned.  He  was  the  lightest  steer  of  the  bunch  and 
never  thrived  in  the  feed  lot,  although  he  was  picking  up 
towards  the  end  of  the  experiment.  When  slaughtered  it 
was  found  that  he  had  some  tumors  along  the  digestive  tract, 
but  he  was  not  tubercular.  This  condition,  no  doubt,  ac- 
counts for  the  small  gains  which  he  made. 

Steer  31  started  out  fairly  well,  but  went  off  feed  badly 
during  the  second  digestion  trial.  Following  this  trial,  he 
appeared  to  be  recovering  satisfactorily  when  suddenly  he 
again  went  off  feed  and  this  time  he  continued  to  fail  to 
the  end  of  the  experiment.  Upon  examination  at  the  time 
of  slaughtering,  a piece  of  baling  wire  was  found  deeply 
imbedded  in  the  musculature  surrounding  the  orifice  between 
the  first  and  second  stomachs,  in  such  a way  as  to  cause 
irritation  and  pain.  Evidently  this  was  the  cause  for  his  poor 
showing. 

S’eer  32  dropped  off  slightly  early  in  the  feeding  period, 
Hit  soon  began  gaining  and  continued  to  do  so  satisfactorily, 
up  to  the  sixtieth  day,  when  he  suddenly  went  off  feed.  He 
recovered  in  a few  days  and  gained  fairly  well  to  the  end 
of  the  lest,  but  never  quite  overcame  the  effects  of  the  “set- 
back.” 

Steer  33  gained  regularly  and  satisfactorily  up  to  within 
ten  days  of  the  end  of  the  test.  He  then  suddenly  went  off 
feed  for  a few  days,  and  was  just  beginning  to  recover  when. 


50 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


the  test  ended.  He  continued  to  gain  up  to  the  time  he  was 
slaughtered,  a few  days  later. 

Although  steer  34  appeared  in  every  respect  the  poorest 
steer  in  the  group,  he  was  the  only  one  that  made  regular  and 
satisfactory  gains  throughout  the  period.  He  was  very  thin 
at  the  start,  and  was  by  no  means  a well  finished  or  well 
balanced  animal  at  the  end,  although  he  had  improved  con- 
siderably. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGEJS  51 

Comparative  Gains  of  the  Various  Ages  of  Steers.  For 

convenience  in . comparing  the  gains  made  by  the  various 
groups  of  steers,  the  following  table  has  been  prepared. — 

TABLE  14.- — LIVE  WEIGHTS  AND  GAINS  IN  LIVE  WEIGHT. 


Average  weight, 

pounds 

Initial  weight, 

pounds 

Final  weight, 

pounds 

Total  gain, 

pounds 

Average  gain  per  day, 

pounds 

Average  daily  gain  per 

1,000  pounds  live  weight, 

pounds 

Experiment,  1913. 

Calves. 

Steer  26  

513.5 

482.3 

680.3 

98.0 

.82 

1.60 

Steer  27  

610.1 

559.7 

663.7 

104.0 

.87 

1.43 

Steer  28  

653.1 

556.7 

767.3 

210.6 

1.76 

2.69 

Steer  29  

572.5 

498.7 

681.3 

182.6 

1.52 

2.66 

Steer  30  

501.5 

422.3 

588.3 

166.0 

1.38 

2.75 

Average  per  steer  

570.1 

503.9 

656.2 

152.2 

1.27 

2.23 

Average,  omitting  steer  27  . . 

560.1 

490.0 

654.3 

164.3 

1.37 

2.43 

Average,  omitting  steers  26 

and  27  

575.7 

492.6 

678.9 

186.4 

1.55 

2.70 

Yearlings. 

Steer  21  

820.4 

720.0 

904.7 

184.7 

1.54 

1.88 

Steer  22  

8G2.2 

703.3 

999.0 

295.7 

2.46 

2.85 

Steer  23  1 

888.1 

778.3 

1005.5 

227.4 

1.90 

2.14 

Steer  24  | 

773.2 

734.0 

807.7 

73.7 

.61 

.79 

Steer  25  | 

828.2 

734.3 

9310 

196.7 

| 1.64 

1.98 

Average  per  steer  | 

834.4  | 

739.9 

929.6 

195.6  | 

| 1.63 

1.93 

Average,  omitting  steer  24  ....  | 

849.7  | 

| 734.0 

960.1 

226.1 

1 1.89 

2.21 

Experiment,  1915. 

• 1 
1 

1 

Two-year-olds. 

| 

Steer  36  

1018.4  | 

911.7 

1151.3 

239.6  | 

2.00 

1.96 

Steer  37  

881.1  | 

856.7 

920.0 

63.3  1 

1 .53 

.60 

Steer  38  | 

957.8  | 

871.7 

1065.0  I 

193.3  j 

1.61 

1.85 

Steer  39  » | 

1040.1  | 

894.7 

1190.7  | 

296.0  | 

2.47 

2.76 

Steer  40  j 

974.6  | 

833.3 

1119.3  | 

286.0 

2.38 

2.44 

Average  per  steer  j 

974.4  | 

873.6 

1089.3  | 

215.6 

1.80 

1.92 

Average,  omitting  steer  37... | 

997.7  | 

877.9 

1131.6  1 

253.8 

2.12 

2.25 

Three-year-olds. 

I 

Steer  31  | 

1033.3 

995.0 

1023.7  | 

28.7 

.24| 

.23 

Steer  32  | 

1030.6 

945.0 

11.07.7  | 

162.7 

1.36| 

1.32 

Steer  33  | 

1160.1 

1063.3 

1247.7  | 

184.4 

1.54 

1.33 

Steer  34  | 

947.3 

853.3 

1071.0  1 

217.7 

1.81 

1.91 

Steer  35  | 

839.2  | 

806.7 

896.7  | 

90.0  | 

.75 

.89 

Average  per  steer  | 

1002.1  | 

932.6 

1069.4  | 

136.7  | 

1.14 

1.14 

Average,  omitting  steers  31  1 

1 

I 

I 

and  35  1 

1 

1044.5  | 
1 

953.9 

1142.1  | 
1 

188.3  1 

1 

1.57| 

I 

1.52 

52 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


In  considering  the  gains  made  by  the  various  groups 
of  steers  it  is  well  to  remember  that  the  calves  and  yearlings 
were  fed  one  year,  the  two-  and  three-year-olds  another,  and 
that  different  lots  of  feed  were  used  each  year.  The  most 
striking  difference  in  the  composition  of  the  feeds  is  with  the 
alfalfa — that  of  1915  being  considerably  coarser  than  that 
of  1913.  Also,  as  previously  stated,  the  steers  used  in  1913 
differed  from  those  of  1915  in  reference  to  breeding,  type, 
condition,  etc. 

Disregarding  for  the  time  being  the  different  conditions 
just  mentioned  and  considering  the  groups  as  a whole,  it  will 
be  seen  that  the  yearlings  and  two-year-olds  made  somewhat 
greater  gains  per  day  and  head  than  the  calves  and  three-year - 
olds,  and  that  the  last  two  made  nearly  equal  gains.  This  hold:* 
true  whether  the  average  results  of  all  the  steers  in  each  group 
or  the  averages  with  doubtful  or  abnormal  steers  omitted  are 
considered.  Taking  the  results  with  doubtful  steers  omitted, 
the  average  gains  per  day  and  head  were  as  follows : calves. 
1.55;  yearlings,  1.89;  two-year-olds,  2.12;  and  three-year- 
olds,  1.57  pounds.  W|hen  the  gains  are  calculated  to  a com- 
mon basis  of  gains  per  1,000  pounds  of  live  weight,  the  fig- 
ures for  the  respective  ages  of  steers  are  2.70,  2.21,  2.25  and 
1.52  pounds;  which  shows  that  although  the  calves  made  about 
the  same  gains  per  day  and  head  as  the  three-year-olds,  and 
less  gains  than  the  yearlings  and  two-year-olds,  they  were, 
nevertheless,  gaining  at  a more  rapid  rate  per  unit  of  body 
weight. 

The  figures  for  the  gains  per  1,000  pounds  live  weight 
in  the  case  of  the  three-year-olds  are,  no  doubt,  too  low  in 
comparison  with  the  others.  Steer  33  made  an  average  daily 
gain  of  2.13  pounds  during  the  first  110  days  of  the  feeding 
period,  which  if  continued  for  another  ten  days,  would  have 
raised  the  rate  of  gain  for  these  steers  considerably.  There 
was  also  a break  in  the  continuity  of  the  gains  by  steer  32. 
which  tended  to  make  his  gains  a little  low 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES 


53 


However,  in  spite  of  irregularities,  the  results  in  general 
are  in  harmony  with  those  obtained  in  the  experiments  with 
alfalfa  hay,  in  showing  a decrease  in  rate  of  gain  per  unit 
of  body  weight  with  advancing  age. 

Feed  Consumed  for  Gains  Made 

Although  all  the  steers  had  been  pretty  well  tamed  be- 
fore starting  thd  regular  feeding  period,  they  were,  no  doubt, 
disturbed  somewhat  by  being  fastened  up  in  the  stanchions, 
led  around  with  ropes,  etc.,  especially  during  the  first  two  or 
three  weeks  of  the  feeding  period.  On  this  account  they 
probably  did  not  consume  as  much  feed  as  they  would  have 
done  without  these  disturbances,  and  consequently  did  not 
make  as  large  gains  as  they  might  have  done  under  different 
conditions. 

The  amounts  of  feed  consumed  by  individual  steers  and 
groups  of  steers  of  different  ages,  per  day,  per  1000  pounds 
live  weight  and  per  pound  of  gain  are  given  in  table  15. 


54 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  15.— FEED  CONSUMED  ON  BASIS  OF  DRY  MATTER. 


Experiment,  1913. 

Calves. 

Steer  26  

Steer  27  

Steer  28  

Steer  29  

Steer  30  


Average  per  steer  

Average,  omitting  steer 

27  

Average,  omitting  steers 
26  and  27  


Yearlings. 
Steer  21 
Steer  22 
Steer  23  . 
Steer  24  . 
Steer  25  . 


Feed  consumed  per  day 


Average  per  steer 
Average,  omitting  steer 
24  


Experiment,  1915. 
Two-year-olds. 

Steer  36  

Steer  37  

Steer  38  

Steer  39  

Steer  40, 


Average  per  steer 

Average,  omitting  steer 
37  


Three-year-olds. 
Steer  31 

Steer  32  

Steer  33  

Steer  34  

Steer  35  


Average  per  steer | 

Average,  omitting  steers) 
31  and  35  | 


5.16 

5.17 
6.36 
6.08 
5.58 

5.67 

5.80 

6.01 


10.33  | 

10.69  | 

10.75 
6.66  | 
8.57  | 

9.40  I 

I 

10.09  | 


10.29 
6.66  | 
10.53  | 

11.76  | 

11.51  | 

10.15  j 

11.02  I 


8.66 
10.77 
11.43 
10.33 
7.57  | 

9.75  j 

10.84  I 


pounds 

Total  per  steer, 

pounds 

Per  1,000  pounds 

average  live 

weight,  pounds 

Food  consumed  pei 

pound  gain  in  live 

weight,  pounds 

1 

3.60 

8.76 

17.06 

10.68 

4.20 

9.37 

15.36 

10.77 

4.80 

11.16 

17.09 

6.34 

4.69 

10.77 

18.81 

7.09 

4.70 

10.28 

20.50  | 

7.45 

4.40 

10.07 

17.76 

8.47 

4.45 

10.25 

18.37  i 

7.89 

4 73 

10.74 

18.80  1 

6.96 

6.86 

17.19 

20.95 

11.16 

9.25 

j 19.94 

23.12 

8.11 

8.59 

19.34 

21.78  ‘ 

10.18 

5.79 

12.45 

16.10 

20.41 

6.03 

14.60 

17.62 

8.90 

7.30 

16.70 

19.91  1 

11.75 

7.68 

17.77 

1 20.87 

| 

1 9.57 

8.37 

| 18.66  | 

| 18.32  ! 

9.33 

5.29 

| 11.95 

1 13.56  ! 

22.55 

8.53 

| 19.06 

! 19.90  i 

11.84 

9.52 

21.28 

| 20.46  ' 

8.62 

9.28 

j 20.79 

I 21.33  1 

8.73 

8.20 

1 18.35 

1 18.71  1 

j 

12.21 

8.93 

19.95 

| 20.00  1 
1 1 

9.63 

6.71 

15.37 

| 14.87 

: 64.04 

8.53 

19.30 

| 18.73  ' 

14.19 

9.09 

20.52 

17.69  1 

13.32 

8.32 

18.65 

19.69  ( 

10.30 

5.84 

| 13.41 

15.98 

17.88 

7.70 

17.45 

17.59 

23.95 

8.65 

| 19.49 

18.70 

12.60 

RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGE’S 


55 


Considering  the  averages  of  all  the  steers  in  each  group, 
the  various  groups  of  steers  per  day  and  head  consumed,  in 
pounds,  the  following  amounts  of  feed:  calves,  10.07;  year- 
lings, 16.70;  two-year-olds,  18.35;  three-year-olds,  17.45; 
while  per  1,000  pounds  average  live  weight  the  amounts  are: 
17.76,  19.91,  18.71,  and  17.59,  respectively.  Considered  as 
above  the  amounts  of  feed  consumed  per  pound  of  gain  are: 
calves,  8.47;  yearlings,  11.75;  two-year-olds,  12.21  ; and  three- 
year-olds,  23.95. 

If  the  results  from  the  steers  previously  mentioned  as 
doubtful  or  abnormal  are  omitted,  the  average  amounts  of 
feed  consumed  per  steer  and  per  1,000  pounds  live  weight 
are  increased  somewhat;  but  on  the  other  hand,  the  amounts 
of  feed  consumed  per  pound  of  gain  are  decreased  and  show 
smaller  differences  among  the  different  groups.  The  amounts 
in  pounds  of  feed  consumed  per  steer,  on  this  basis,  are : cal- 
ves, 10.74;  yearlings,  17.77;  two-year-olds,  19.95;  and  three- 
year-olds,  19.49;  whereas,  per  1,000  pounds  live  weight  they 
are:  calves,  18.80;  yearlings,  20.87;  two-year-olds,  20.00;  and 
three-year-olds  18.70.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  calves  and 
three-year-olds  ate  nearly  the  same  amounts  of  feed  per  1,000 
pounds  live  weight,  and  less  than  either  the  yearlings  or  two- 
year-olds.  Table  14  shows  that  the  calves  and  the  three-year- 
olds  made  practically  the  same  gains  per  day  and  head,  and 
that  the  yearlings  and  two-year-olds,  which,  as  shown  above, 
consumed  relatively  more  feed,  also  made  greater  gains.  How- 
ever, the  yearlings  ate  relatively  more  feed  than  the  two- 
year-olds,  but  made  smaller  gains. 

The  pounds  of  feed  consumed  per  pound  of  gain  are  as 
follows:  calves,  6.96;  yearlings,  9.57;  two-year-olds,  9.63; 
and  three-year-olds,  12.60.  Although  the  calves  and  three- 
year-olds  consumed  practically  the  same  quantity  of  feed  per 
unit  of  body  weight,  the  three-year-olds  required  nearly  twice 
as  much  feed  as  the  former  per  pound  of  gain,  and  the  year- 
lings and  two-vear-olds  nearly  one-third  more  In  this  series 


56 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


of  experiments,  as  in  the  alfalfa  series  previously  referred  to, 
there  was  very  little  difference  between  the  amounts  of  feed 
consumed  per  unit  of  gain  by  the  yearlings  and  two-year-olds, 
and  they  occupy  an  intermediate  position,  as  compared  with 
the  calves  and  three-year-olds. 

The  amounts  of  feed  required  by  the  three-year-olds  per 
pound  of  gain  are  probably  a little  high,  owing  to  the  fact 
that  steer  33  went  off  feed  badly,  about  ten  days  before  the 
experiment  ended,  and  consequently  did  not  end  up  in  good 
condition.  During  the  first  110  days  of  the  experiment  this 
steer  required  only  10.76  pounds  of  feed  per  pound  of  gain, 
as  compared  with  13.32  for  the  whole  period.  For  practical 
purposes  the  yearlings  and  two-year-olds  required  the  same 
quantities  of  feed  per  unit  of  gain,  as  the  differences  observed 
are  too  small  to  be  significant;  especially  in  consideration  of 
the  differences  in  the  feed,  steers  used,  etc. 

Character  of  Gains  Indicated  by  Nitrogen  Balances. 

In  connection  with  the  digestion  trials  the  urine  was  col- 
lected, weighed,  sampled,  and  its  nitrogen  content  determined. 
From  the  nitrogen  content  of  the  feeds,  feed  residues  and  ex- 
creta the  income  and  outgo  of  nitrogen  during  the  several 
digestion  trials  has  been  calculated.  In  the  following  tables 
a correction  for  the  growth  of  epidermal  tissues  has  been 
applied,  using  the  average  values  given  by  Armsby  and  Fries* 
and  calculating  the  amounts  in  proportion  to  the  two-thirds 
power  of  the  live  weights  of  the  steers : — 


*Armsby,  H.  P.,  and  Fries,  J.  August,  “The  Influence  of  Type 
and  Age  upon  the  Utilization  of  Feed  by  Cattle,”  U.  S.  Dept,  of  Agri- 
culture, Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  Bui.  128,  p.  198. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES 


57 


TABLE  16.— NITROGEN  BALANCES,  1913. 


Calves 

Yearlings 

Steer  28 

Steer  30 

Steer  22 

Steer  24 

1 

| Income, 

, grams 

Outgo, 

grams 

Income, 

gram  s 

Outgo, 

grams 

Income, 

grams 

Outgo, 

grams 

Income,  1 

grams  | 

Outgo, 

grams 

Digestion  Trial  1. 

1 

1 

Alfalfa  hay  

107.2 

90.5 

141.5 

136.5 

Milo  maize  meal  

35.4 

29.7 

46.4 

44.8 

Feed  residues  

51.3 

17.6 

7.3 

96.4 

Feces  

32.8 

39-.6 

66.5 

34.4 

Urine  

41.7 

47.1 

96.5 

59.0 

Epidermal  tissues  . . . 

1.3 

1.1 

1.6 

1.6 

Gain  -f ; loss  -- 

+15.5 

+ 14.8 

+16.0 

—10.1 

142.6 

142.6 

120.2 

120.2 

187.9 

187.9 

191.4 

191.4 

Digestion  Trial  II. 

Alfalfa  hay  

69.3 

59.4 

143.5 

74.2 

Milo  maize  meal  .... 

46.5 

39.8 

96.3 

49.8 

Feed  residues  

6.5 

39.9 

9.2 

Feces  

42.6 

40.2 

78.4 

46  0 

Urine  

56.2 

39.3 

106.7 

67.8 

Epidermal  tissues  . . . 

1.5 

1.2 

1.8 

1.6 

Gain  loss  — 

+ 16.1 

+12.0 

+ 13.0 

+ 9.4 

115.8 

115.8 

99.2 

99.2 

239.8 

239.8 

124.0 

1240 

Digestion  Trial  III. 

Alfalfa  hay  

77.3 

72.5 

140.2 

91.8 

Milo  maizes  meal 

51.7 

48.5 

93.7 

61.4 

Feed  residues  

.8 

' 21.5 

79.1 

69.1 

Feces  

52.3 

41.8 

61.2 

34.5 

Urine  

62.1 

44.2 

91.8 

60.6 

Epidermal  tissues  . . . 

1.6 

1.3 

1.9 

1.7 

Gain  + ; loss  — 

+12.2 

+12.2 

— 1 

—12.7 

129.0 

129.0 

121.0 

121.0 

234.0 

234.0 

165.9 

165.9 

58 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  17.— NITROGEN  BALANCES,  1915. 


Two-year-olds 

Three- 

-year-olds 

Steer  36 

Steer 

■ 38 

Steer  31 

1 Steer  33 

Income, 
grams  1 

Outgo, 

grams 

Income, 

grams 

Outgo, 

grams  j 

Income, 

grams 

Outgo, 

grams 

Income, 

grams 

Outgo, 

grams 

Digestion  Trial  1. 

1 

1 

. i 

I 

1 

1 

Alfalfa  hay  i 

J 

1 85.4| 

91.1 

91.0 

! 

113.8 

Milo  maize  meal  | 

38.7| 

41.3 

41.3 

51.6 

Feces  

| 49.5 

45.3 

55.4 

66.1 

Urine  

77.9 

79.8 

83.0 

107.3 

Epidermal  tissues  . . . 

1.8 

1.8 

1.9 

2.0 

Gain  + ; loss  — 

— 5.lj 

+5.5 

—8.0 

—10.0 

129.2 

129.2 

132.4 

132.4 

140.3 

140.3 

175.4 

175.4 

Digestion  Trial  II. 

1 

Alfalfa  hay  . 

97.5 

| 97.5 

97.5 

107.2 

Milo  maize  meal  .... 

90.8 

| 90.8 

90.8 

99.9 

Feed  residues  

.1 

71.7 

Feces  

74.5 

74.7 

35.4 

77.5 

Urine  

98.5 

110.6 

73.6 

109.4 

Epidermal  tissues  . . . 

2.0 

1.9 

2.0 

2.2 

Gain  + : loss  — 

1 

| +13.3 

1 

+1.0| 

+5.6 

+ 18.0 

| 188.3 

I 

| 188.3 

| 188.3 

188.3 

| 188.3 

188.3 

207.1 

207.1 

For  convenience  in  considering  the  data,  the  average  live 
weights  of  the  steers  during  the  digestion  trials,  the  gains  or 
losses  of  nitrogen  and  the  equivalent  protein  per  head  and  per 

1.000  pounds  live  weight  are  given  in  table  18.  The  factor 

6.0  was  used  in  calculating  the  equivalent  protein. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


59 


TABLE  18.— GAINS  OF  NITROGEN  AND  PROTEIN,  1913  AND  1915. 


Average 

live  weight. 

pounds. 

Gain  of 

nitrogen. 

grams. 

Equivalent 

<D  . 

si  « 

^ £ 
o t 

A*  bo 

Per  1,000  lbs.  >s 

live  weight,  ° 

grams  £• 

Experiment  1913. 

Calves. 

Steer  28. 

Digestion  trial  I 

546.0 

+ 15.5 

I 

+ 93.0  | 

+ 170.3 

Digestion  trial  II.  . . 

667.0 

+16.1 

+ 96.6  | 

+ 144.8 

Digestion  trial  III. . . 

739.5 

+12.2 

+ 73.2  | 

+ 99.0 

Steer  30 

Digestion  trial  1 

445.0 

+14.8 

■ 

1 

+ 88.8  | 

+ 199.5 

Digestion  trial  II 

514.5 

+12.0 

+ 72.0  | 

+ 139.9 

Digestion  trial  III. . 

575.7 

• +12.2 

+ 73.2  | 

+ 127.1 

Yearlings. 

Steer  22 

Digestion  trial  1 

745.5 

+ 16.0 

+ 96.0  | 

| + 128.8 

Digestion  trial  II 

900.6 

+13.0 

+ 78.0  | 

+ 86.6 

Digestion  trial  III 

986.2 

—0.1 

—0  6 i 

-.6 

Steer  24 

Digestion  trial  1 

739.0 

-10.1 

—60.6 

— 82.0 

Digestion  trial  II.  . . 

764.7 

+ 9.4 

+ 56.4  i 

| + 73.8 

Digestion  trial  III  ... 

813  7 

—12  7 

—76.2 

! —93.6 

Experiment,  1915. 

Two-year-olds. 
Steer  36 

Digestion  trial  I 

922.1 

—5.1 

30.6 

I 

! —33.2 

Digestion  trial  II  . 

1028.5 

+ 18.3 

+ 79.8 

i +77.6 

Steer  38 

Digestion  trial  I 

880.0 

+ 5.5 

+ 33.0 

! 

! +37.5 

Digestion  trial  11  ... 

972.7 

+ 1.0 

+ 6.0 

1 +6-2 

Three-year-olds. 
Steer  31 

Digestion  trial  I 

999.1 

8.0 

—48.0 

j 

I —48.0 

Digestion  trial  II  ...  . 

1068.1 

+ 5 6 

+ 33.6 

! +31.8 

Steer  33 

Digestion  trial  1 

1080.1 

—10.0 

—60.0 

I ' 

1 — 55.5 

Digestion  trial  II  ...  . 

1191.7 

| +18.0 

j +108.0 

i +90.6 

60 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


Although  the  results  are  irregular  and  in  some  instances 
fluctuate  greatly  from  one  trial  to  the  next,  with  the  same 
individual,  it  is  obvious  from  the  data  in  the  last  column  of  the 
table  that  the  calves  were  gaining  in  protein  at  a much  more 
rapid  rate  than  the  others.  While  there  is  an  indication  that 
the  yearlings  were  gaining  in  protein  a little  more  rapidly  than 
the  older  steers,  the  irregularity  of  the  results  preclude  any 
definite  statement  to  that  effect.  Owing  to  a number  of  ac- 
cidents, resulting  in  losses  of  urine  during  the  experiments  of 
1915,  some  of  the  irregularities  observed  may  possibly  be  due 
to  that. 

Net  Energy,  Digestible  Protein  and  Nitrogen  Consumed,  and  Esti 
mated  Energy  in  Gains. 

The  average  net  energy  values  of  the  rations  consumed 
by  the  steers  by  months  and  for  the  entire  feeding  period 
were  calculated  for  all  the  steers  by  means  of  the  values  given 
in  table  13.  Estimations  of  the  maintenance  requirements, 
the  energy  available  for  gains  and  the  energy  in  each  pound 
of  gain  were  also  made  for  the  various  steers  by  months,  as  well 
as  for  the  entire  feeding  period.  The  maintenance  require- 
ment was  calculated  in  proportion  to  the  two-thirds  power 
of  the  average  live  weights,  on  the  basis  of  6.16*  therms  per 
1,000  pounds  live  weight.  In  estimating  the  maintenance  re- 
quirements in  this  way  we  are  aware  that  a variety  of  con- 
ditions affect  these  requirements,  among  which  may  be  men- 
tioned, muscular  activity,  time  spent  standing  and  lying,  age, 
individuality,  condition,  etc.  Armsby**  has  pointed  out  that 
the  maintenance  requirements  of  young  cattle  appear  to  be 
relatively  higher  than  for  older  ones,  and  this  has  been  con- 
firmed in  the  experiments  of  Trowbridge,  Mbulton  and  Haight 

*Armsby,  H.  P.,  “The  Maintenance  Rations  of  Farm  Animals/* 
U S.  Dept,  of  Agriculture,  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  Bui.  143,  p.  47 

**Same  bulletin,  pp.  64-74. 

tTrowbridge,  P.  F.,  Moulton,  C.  R.,  and  Haigh,  L.  D.,  “The 
Maintenance  Requirement  of  Cattle/’  Missouri  Agricultural  Experi 
ment  Station  Research  Bulletin  No  18. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES 


61 


at  the  Missouri  Experiment  Station.  Other  things  being 
equal,  then,  our  estimates  for  the  maintenance  of  the  calves  and 
yearlings  are  relatively  too  low,  as  compared  with  the  older 
steers.  On  the  other  hand,  the  calves  and  yearlings,  as  a rule, 
are  more  easily  tamed  and  in  general  are  more  quiet  in  the 
feed  lots;  which  would  have  a tendency  to  offset  the  higher 
maintenance  requirements  as  compared  with  the  older  steers 
As  we  have  no  direct  determinations  of  the  maintenance  re- 
quirements of  the  various  individuals,  nor  any  data  on  the 
relative  muscular  activity,  time  spent  standing  and  lying,  etc., 
it  seems  likely  that  for  comparative  purposes  the  estimates 
already  made  are,  perhaps,  as  satisfactory  as  any 


62 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  19.— NET  ENERGY,  DIGESTIBLE  PROTEIN  AND  NITROGEN 
CONSUMED,  AND  ESTIMATED  ENERGY  IN  GAINS. 


Digestible  nitrogen 
per  day,  pounds 

Digestible  protein 
per  day,  pounds 

N' 

CO 

m 

0)  c 

<2  5 

C 5 

et 

energy 

s . 

CD  CO 

s i 

rz)  '5 

P cf 

1*1 
£ 0)  p 

$ a is 

H a ** 

•a 

Available  for  gam,  ® 

therms 

& 

p 

. . . — V! 

Estimated  energy  in 

one  pound  of  gain 

therms 

Experiment,  1913. 

| 

| 

| 

| 

Calves. 

| 

| 

Steer  26  

.13 

.60 

4.58 

3.95 

.63 

.77 

Steer  27  . 

.14 

.65 

5.03 

4.43 

.60 

.69 

Steer  28  

.16 

.79 

5.92 

4.54 

1.38 

.78 

Steer  29  

.14 

75 

5.73 

4.25 

1.48 

.97 

Steer  30  

.14 

.71 

5.55 

3.89  | 

1.66 

1.20 

Average  

| .14 

.70 

| 5.36 

4.21 

1.15 

.88 

Average,  omitting 

i 

1 , 

steers  26  and  27 

| .15 

I * .75 

5.73 

4.23 

1.51 

.98 

Yearlings. 

1 

1 

Steer  21  

| .31 

| 1.20 

8.90 

5.40  , 

3.50 

2.27 

Steer  22  

| .29 

1 1.38 

10.82 

5.58 

5.24 

2.13 

Steei*  23  

1 .28 

1 1.34 

10.35 

5.69 

4.66 

2.45 

Steer  24  

| .18 

| .86 

6.76 

5.19 

1.57 

2.57 

Steer  25  

1 -21 

| 1.02 

7.64 

5.43 

2.21 

1.35 

Average  

| ■ .25 

| 1.16 

8.89 

5.46 

3.44 

2.15 

1 

Average,  omitting 

1 

1 

1 

! 

1 

steer  24  

| .27 

| 1.24 

9.43 

5.53 

3.90 

2.05 

Experiment,  1915. 

1 

1 

Two-year-olds. 

I 

1 ' ; 

1 

Steer  36  

1 -24 

| 1.22 

| 9.65 

6.24 

3.41 

1.71 

Steer  37  

1 .15 

| .78 

1 6.15 

5.66 

.49 

.92 

Steer  38  

| .25 

| 1.25 

1 9.85 

5.99 

3.86 

2.40 

Steer  39  

| .28 

| 1.39 

1 11.00 

6.32 

4.68 

1.8j 

Steer  40  

| .27 

| 1.36 

| 10.74 

6.06 

4.68 

1.97 

Average  

) 

| .24 

| 1.20 

| 9.48 

1 

6.05 

3.42 

1.78 

Average,  omitting 

! 

1 

1 

1 

steer  37  

| .26 

| 1.31 

I 10.31 

6.15 

4.16 

| 1.99  . 

Three-year-olds 

1 

1 

I 

Steer  31  

| .20 

| 1.00 

| 7.87 

6.30 

1.57 

| 6.54 

Steer  32  

| .25 

I 1.26 

1 9.93 

1 

6.29 

3.64 

i 2.68 

Steer  33  

I .27 

| 1.34 

i 10.57 

6.81 

3.76 

I 2.44 

Steer  34  

1 .24 

! 1.22 

| 9.63 

5.94 

3.69 

| 2.04 

Steer  35  . . . 

1 L 

| .87 

| 6.86 

5.45 

1.41 

| 1.88 

1 

Average,  omitting 

1 

| 

1 

steer  31  

| .23 

| 1.17 

| 9.25 

6.12 

3.13 

| 2.26 

1 

Average,  omitting 

1 

1 

1 

1 

! 

steers  31  and  35  

-!  .25 

| 1.27 

I 10  04 

6.35 

3.70 

1 2.39 

RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGE’S 


63 


Protein.  Considering  first  the  amounts  of  digestible  pro- 
tein consumed  by  the  various  groups  of  steers,  omitting  the  ab- 
normal individuals  in  each  group,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  calves, 
yearlings,  two-year-olds,  and  three-year-olds  consumed  .75, 
1.24,  1.31.  and  1.27  pound,  respectively,  of  digestible  true 
protein  per  day.  A comparison  of  these  data  with  the  stand- 
ards of  Armsby*,  in. connection  with  the  average  live  weights 
of  the  steers  as  given  in  table  14,  shows  that  in  every  instance 
mere  protein  was  consumed  than  was  necessary  for  mainten- 
ance, but  on  the  other  hand,  none  of  the  steers  received  as 
much  protein  as  Armsby  recommends  for  growing  cattle.  As 
might  be  expected,  the  discrepancy  in  respect  to  protein  is 
greatest  with  the  calves,  as  no  provision  was  made  to  meet 
the  l datively  greater  demand  for  protein  on  the  part  of  the 
\\  nnger  animals.  However,  the  amounts  of  protein  consum- 
ed by  the  steers  are  smaller  than  it  was  intended  they  should 
be,  as  the  steers  consumed  less  feed  than  anticipated. 

Net  Energy  of  Rations.  From  a consideration  of  the 

estimated  energy  values  of  the  rations,  it  appears  that  the 
cal;  es  received  more  than  enough  energy  for  maintenance, 
but  not  as  much  as  Armsby  allows  for  growing  cattle.  The 
other  steers,  apparently,  received  an  ample  allowance  of  en- 
ergy for  maintenance  and  growth,  with  a surplus  for  fatten- 
ing purposes. 

The  relatively  small  gains  made  by  the  calves  in  this  series 
of  experiments  are  no  doubt  due  to  the  lack  of  sufficient  pro- 
tein and  energy  in  the  rations  consumed,  on  account  of  the 
relatively  small  amount  of  feed  eaten 

Relative  Energy  Content  of  Gains.  The  data  regarding 

the  estimated  energy  content  per  unit  of  gain,  taken  as  they 
stand,  indicate  that  the  yearlings  and  two-year-olds  stored 
approximately  twice  as  much  energy  per  unit  of  gain,  and 

♦Armsby,  H.  P.,  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture, 
“The  Computation  of  Rations  for  Farm  Animals  by  the  Use  of  Em 
ergy  Values;”  Farmers'  Bulletin  No  346,  pp.  16-18 


64 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


the  three-year-olds  nearly  two  and  a half  times  as  much  as  the 
calves.  In  other  words,  with  increasing  age  of  the  animals, 
and  consequent  decrease  in  rate  of  growth,  there  is  an  increase 
in  the  energy  stored  per  unit  of  gain.  If  the  maintenance  re- 
quirements of  the  younger  animals  are  relatively  greater  than 
the  requirements  of  the  older  ones,  other  things  being  equal, 
the  differences  just  noted  should  be  larger. 

With  reference  to  the  energy  stored  per  unit  of  gain  dur- 
ing the  different  months  of  the  feeding  period  by  the  various 
steers,  it  should  be  stated  that  wide  variations  were  observed 
among  the  individuals  of  the  same  group,  as  well  as  with  the 
same  individuals,  during  the  different  months.  In  general, 
however,  the  steers  consumed  more  and  more  energy  above 
the  maintenance  requirements  as  the  feeding  period  advanced, 
and  also  more  energy  was  stored  per  unit  of  gain.  To  bring 
out  the  latter  point  more  clearly,  the  average  amounts  of 
energy  stored  by  the  various  groups  of  steers  have  been  tab- 
ulated by  months,  and  are  given  in  table  20.  In  preparing 
the  averages  the  diagrams  of  the  live  weights  were  referred 
to  and  only  those  steers  showing  fairly  regular  and  uniform 
gains  for  a given  month  were  considered.  For  instance,  the  data 
regarding  steer  32  are  included  in  the  averages  for  the  first, 
second  and  fourth  months,  with  the  third  month  omitted, 
as  he  was ‘off  feed  for  several  days  during  the  month.  The 
averages  are  intended  to  indicate  the  nature  of  the  gains  of 
the  different  groups  of  steers  by  months,  while  making  fairly 
uniform  gains;  and  therefore  those  steers  showing  any  great 
irregularity  for  any  cause  have  been  left  out  of  considera- 
tion in  this  connection. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGE’S. 


65 


TABLE  20.— ESTIMATED  ENERGY  IN  GAi’nS  BY  MONTHS 


Estimated  energy  in  one  pound  of  gain,  therms 


First 

month 

Second 

month 

Third 

month 

Foui’.h 

month 

Calves  

1 

| 1.04 

.53 

1.09  | 

1.24 

Yearlings  

1 . 1-95 

1.75 

1.76  1 

i 3.68 

Two-year-olds  . . . 

| : .70 

1.49 

2.34 

. 3 16 

Three-year-olds..  | 

2.15 

1 

1.52 

2.44  | 

2.79 

The  estimated  energy  per  unit  of  gain  for  the  first  month 
shows  considerable  irregularity  among  the  groups  and  also 
averages  noticeably  higher  than  during  the  following  month, 
except  in  the  case  of  the  two-year-olds.  A glance  at  the  dia- 
gram of  the  live  weights  reveals  greater  irregularities  in  the 
gains  of  the  individuals  during  the  first  month  than  during 
the  later  months  of  the  periods,  and  possibly  this  may  account, 
in  part,  for  the  irregularities  noted.  Aside  from  the  high 
values  during  the  first  month,  the  general  tendency  is  toward 
a greater  storage  of  energy  per  unit  of  gain  as  the  feeding; 
period  advances. 

SLAUGHTER  TESTS. 

All  the  steers  fed  in  these  experiments  were  slaughtered 
shortly  after  the  feeding  period  ended.  As  there  are  no  facil- 
ities for  slaughtering  at  the  Experiment  Station,  this  was  done 
under  difficulties  at  a privately  owned  slaughter  house  near 
by.  However,  the  tests  were  conducted  as  carefully  as  possible 
under  the  conditions. 

The  evening  preceding  the  slaughter,  the  steers  were  tak- 
en to  the  yards  at  the  slaughter  house,  where  they  received 
enough  alfalfa  to  keep  them  quiet  and  contented  until  they 
were  slaughtered  in  the  morning.  The  steers,  in  each  case, 
were  weighed  immediately  before  going  to  the  slaughter  house 
but  as  the  scale  was  some  distance  from  the  killing  room,  oc 


66 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


casionally  losses  of -feces  and  urine  occurred,  which  make  it 
impossible  to  tell  just  what  the  fill  of  the  animal  was  at  the 
time  of  weighing. 

The  results  of  the  slaughter  tests  are  given  in  detail  in 
tables  50  to  55  of  the  appendix.  The  average  results  for  the 
steers  of  different  ages  are  summarized  in  the  following  table: 

TABLE  21.— RESULTS  OF  SLAUGHTER  TESTS,  AVERAGE  PERCENT- 
AGES, 1913  AND  1915. 


Calves,  average 
per  cent. 

Yearlings,  average 

per  cent. 

Two -year -olds,, 

average 

per  cent. 

Three -year-olds, 

average 

per  cent. 

Dressed  beef,  warm  

57.08 

59.24 

58.72 

57.59 

Right  half  carcass  

28.35 

29.44 

29.23 

28.75 

Left  half  carcass  

28.73 

29.80 

29.49 

28.82 

Hide  

7.85 

7.48 

6.51 

6.67 

Tail  

.26 

.21 

.23 

.23 

Head  

2.86  l 

| 2.51 

2.47 

2.57 

Tongue  and  trimmings  

1 

.63 

1 

.57 

.51* 

.56 

Feet  

1.88 

1.71 

1.68 

1.88 

Heart  . ; . . } 

| .45 

.41 

.40 

.44 

Lungs  and  windpipe  

1.45 

1.42 

1.35 

1.44 

Liver  . 

1.07 

1.08 

1.13. 

1.05 

Fat, 

Total  

1.85 

2.83 

2.86 

2.28 

Caul  

1.15 

1.65 

1.36 

1.07 

Intestinal  and  pluck  

.70 

| 1.18 

1.49 

1.20 

Stomachs  with  contents  

13.87 

| 12.52 

11.88 

13.06 

Stomachs  empty  

3.15 

i 3.30 

3.10 

3.13 

Intestines  empty  

1.97 

| 1.88 

2.02 

2.00 

Spleen  

1 

| .... 

1 

21 

.24 

Internal  organs  and  trimmings  not  in- 

1 

cluded  above  

1.42 

1 

i 1.50 

I 

1.17 

1.10 

♦Average  results  from  four  steers  only  owing  to  a doubtful  weight  In 
the  case  of  steer  37. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES 


67 


On  the  average,  the  calves  yielded  a lower  percentage  of 
dressed  beef  than  the  yearlings  or  two-year-olds,  and  nearly 
the  same  as  the  three-year-olds.  Reference  to  tables  51  and 
53  of  the  appendix  shows  that  steers  26  and  27  dressed  53.28 
and  52.37  per  cents,  respectively.  Since  these  were  “off  steers” 
throughout  the  experiment,  it  may  be  well  to  consider  the 
average  with  these  omitted,  in  which  event  the  average  per- 
centage of  dressed  beef  for  this  group  is  59.92 ; which 
compares  favorably  with  the  yearlings  and  two-year-olds.  If 
steer  35  of  the  three-year-olds,  which  averaged  about  3 per 
cent  lower  than  the  lowest  of  the  others,  is  omitted,  the  aver- 
age for  the  remaining  three-year-olds  is  58.42,  an  average 
pretty  close  to  the  two-year-olds.  Considering  the  small  num- 
ber of  steers  in  each  lot.  there  are,  apparently,  no  really  signifi- 
cant differences  in  the  percentages  of  dressed  beef  yielded  in 
favor  of  one  age  or  group  of  steers  over  another. 

However,  a comparison  of  the  percentages  of  dressed 
beef  in  this  series  of  experiments  with  those  of  the  alfalfa  hay 
series,  is  of  interest  in  this  connection. 


TABLE  22.— AVERAGE  PERCENTAGES  OF  DRESSED  BEEF  IN  AL 
FALFA  HAY  AND  MILO  MAIZE  MEAL  EXPERIMENTS. 


Calves, 
per  cent 

Yearlings, 
per  cent 

Two-year-olds, 
per  cent 

Three-year-olds, 
per  cent 

Dressed  beef,  alfalfa  experiment  

52.75 

50.32 

51.10 

57.30 

Dressed  beef,  milo  maize  experiment 

57.08 

59.24 

58.72 

57.59 

Difference  in  favor  of  alfalfa  and  milo 
maize  meal  

4.33 

1 

8.92 

| 7.62 

29 

With  the  exception  of  the  three-year-olds,  the  steers  fed 
on  alfalfa  and  milo  maize  dressed  a considerably  higher  per 


68 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


cent  of  beef  than  the  steers  of  corresponding  ages  in  the  al- 
falfa hay  series.  This,  of  course,  is  in  harmony  with  the  bet- 
ter finish  possessed  by  the  former  at  the  end  of  the  tests. 

wholesale  Cuts  of  Beef.  The  right  halves  of  the  car- 

casses of  two  steers  from  each  group  were  taken  to  the  re- 
frigerator at  the  Experiment  Station,  where  they  were  thor- 
oughly chilled,  and  at  the  end  of  forty-eight  hours,  cut  up 
into  the  regular  “wholesale  cuts.”  The  latter  part  of  the  fore- 
going statement  requires  qualification,  however.  Meat  cut- 
ters were  employed  to  do  the  cutting  up  of  the  carcasses, 
with  instructions  to-  divide  them  into  the  usual  wholesale  cuts. 
We  have  since  learned  that  in  this  section  of  the  country  the 
carcasses  are  not  divided  in  accordance  with  the  methods  in 
use  in  the  packing  houses  of  the  larger  cities,  and  on  this  ac- 
count these  data  are  not  strictly  comparable  with  similar  data 
where  the  packing  house  methods  have  been  followed. 

In  separating  the  fore  and  hind  quarters,  the  practice 
in  this  locality  is  to  leave  two  ribs  on  the  hind  quarter,  instead 
of  one,  so  that  our  hind  quarters  are  relatively  .heavier  than 
the  front  quarters  as  compared  with  carcasses  divided  ac- 
cording to  the  usual  method. 

We  have,  of  necessity,  employed  different  persons  to  do 
the  meat  cutting,  from  year  to  year,  and  as  a result  we  find 
that  the  different  individuals  do  not  make  the  cuts  in  exactly 
the  same  way.  In  other  words,  such  meat  cutters  as  we  have 
been  able  to  secure,  apparently  have  not  been  trained  to  cut 
meat  according  to  any  standardized  method.  On  this  account, 
too  much  importance  should  not  be  attached  to  minor  varia- 
tions of  the  data. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


69 


TABLE  23.— AVERAGE  PERCENTAGES  OF  FORE  AND  HIND  QUAR- 
TERS AND  OF  WHOLESALE  CUTS  IN  RIGHT  HALF  CAR- 
CASS, 1913  AND  1915. 


* 

Calves, 

per  cent 

Yearlings. 

per  cent 

Two-year-olds, 

per  cent 

Three-year- olds, 

per  cent 

Fore  quarter  

49.93 

49.64 

51.23 

51.23 

Hind  quarter  

50.07 

50.36 

48.77 

48.77 

Right  half  carcass  | 

100.00  | 

100.00 

100.00  | 

i 100.00 

Chuck  

24.14 

24.71 

20.61 

19.50 

Prime  rib  

11.77 

12.62 

13.86 

13.84 

Plate  and  shank  

14.03 

12.29 

16.83 

17.91 

Loin  

18.53 

22.04 

19.76 

20.13 

Rump  

7.47 

6.16 

7.65 

9.18 

Round  and  shank  

20.23 

19.07 

19.31 

18.34 

Flank  

3.83 

3.11 

2.09 

1.99 

Perhaps  the  most  striking  differences  in  the  data  of  the 
foregoing  table  are  the  differences  in  the  percentages  of  the 
fore  and  hind  quarters  in  the  case  of  the  calves  and  yearlings, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  older  steers  on  the  other.  The  averages 
for  the  calves  and  yearlings  show  but  little  difference  be- 
tween the  fore  and  hind  quarters,  although  the  hind  quarters 
average  a little  higher,  whereas  with  the  two-year-olds  and 
three-year-olds  the  fore  quarters  average  nearly  2.5  per  cent 
higher  than  the  hind  quarters.  By  a strange  coincidence,  the 
average  percentages  of  fore  and  hind  quarters  for  the  two- 
vear-olds  and  three-year-olds  are  identical. 

The  differences  in  the  percentages  of  fore  and  hind  quar- 
ters may  possibly  be  ascribed  to  differences  in  the  type  and 
breeding  of  the  steers  used  during  the  two  years ; but  the  dif- 
ferences observed  in  the  percentages  of  chuck,  prime  rib,  etc., 
are  no  doubt  due  in  part  to  differences  in  the  cutting  up  of 
the  carcasses,  since  different  persons  did  the  cutting  each  year. 

Chemical  Analysis  of  Meats. 

From  the  two  half  carcasses  of  each  age  of  steers  that 


70 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


were  taken  to  the  Experiment  Station  refrigerator,  four  sam- 
ple cuts  were  taken  and  analyzed  for  water,  protein,  and  fat. 
These  cuts  were  from  the  round,  loin,  rib,  and  sfroulder.  The 
fifth  cut  of  the  round  was  made  in  as  nearly  the  same  place 
as  possible  and  taken  for  analysis..  The  loin  cut  was  the  first 
of  the  “flat  bone”  cuts,  in  cutting  from  the  rear  end  of  the  loin. 
From  the  ribs  the  second  prime  rib  from  the  rear  was  taken, 
which  is  the  10th  rib  from  the  front.  The  cut  from  the  shoul- 
der was  the  first  cut  after  removing  the  plate  and  shank  and 
was  what  is  termed  locally  “arm  steak.”  Obviously,  it  'is 
impossible  to  make  some  of  these  cuts  exactly  comparable  in 
every  case,  but  it  seems  probable  that  the  errors  between  in- 
dividuals and  groups  of  individuals  are  not  likely  to  be  all 
in  the  same  direction. 

The  samples  for  chemical  analysis  were  taken  imme- 
diately after  the  quarters  had  been  divided  into  the  cuts.  These 
sample  cuts  were  put  into  tared  friction  top  pails  and  weighed 
when  taken  to  the  laboratory.  Before  the  samples  were  chop- 
ped up  for  chemical  analysis,  the  bone,  lean,  and  visible  fat 
were  separated  and  weighed.  After  weighing,  the  bone  was 
discarded  and  the  fat  and  lean  samples  were  combined  and 
finely  chopped  with  a meat  chopper.  The  chopped  meat  was 
returned  to  the  friction  top  pail,  where  any  remaining  meat 
juices  were  thoroughly  incorporated  with  it  before  portions 
were  taken  for  analysis.  The  slight,  unavoidable  losses  at- 
tending the  chopping  of  the  samples  have  been  considered  as 
representing  moisture. 

The  average  percentage  of  bone,  lean,  and  fat.  in  the 
various  cuts  of  meat  are  shown  in  table  24 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


71 


TABLE  24— AVERAGE  PERCENTAGES  OF  BONE,  LEAN  AND  VISIBLE 
FAT  IN  THE  VARIOUS  CUTS  OF  BEEF,  1913  AND  1915. 


Calves, 

average 

per  cent. 

Yearlings, 

average 

per  cent. 

Two-year-olds, 

average 

per  cent 

Three-year-olds, 

average 

per  cent. 

! 

In, Total  Cut. 

Rib. 

1 1 

1 

I 

1 

Bone  

16.15 

13.39 

15.57 

16.88 

Lean  

54.97 

49.15 

55.94 

55.84 

Fat  

28.89 

37.47 

28.49 

27.29 

Shoulder. 

Bone  

14.15 

11.20 

7.78 

9.30 

Lean  

70.78 

74.42 

74.99 

75.62 

Fat  

15.08 

14.39 

17.23 

15.08 

Round. 

«.  Bone  

3.00 

3.62 

. 2.97 

3.10 

. Lean  

83.97 

84.87 

88.73 

86.44 

Fat  

13.03 

11.77 

8.30 

10.46 

Loin. 

Bone  

11.61 

10.30 

13.21 

12.18 

Lean  

59.41 

56.85 

59.16 

61.67 

Fat  , 

28.91 

32.86 

27.63 

26.15 

In  Bone-Free  Portion. 

Rib. 

| 

! 

Lean  

65.55 

56.73 

66.27  | 

67.17 

Fat  

34.45 

43.27 

33.73 

| 32.84 

Shoulder. 

Lean  

82.47 

83.77 

81.34  i 

1 

I 83.31 

Fat  

17.54 

16.23 

18.66  i 

| 16.69 

Round. 

Lean  

86.57 

87.81 

91.46 

89.21 

Fat  

13.44 

12.19 

8.54 

10.79 

Loin. 

Lean  

67.32 

63.56 

68.16 

70.22 

Fat  

32.69 

36.45 

31.84  | 

| 29  78_ 

No  certain  or  characteristic  differences  appear  in  the  per- 
centages of  lean  and  visible  fat  that  might  be  ascribed  to  dif- 
ferences in  the  ages  of  the  animals.  A comparison  of  the 
data  of  this  series  with  those  of  the  alfalfa  hay  series,  how- 
ever, shows  a noticeably  higher  percentage  of  fat  in  the  rib, 
round  and  loin  of  the  former. 


72 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  25.— AVERAGE  PERCENTAGES  OF  WATER,  PROTEIN  AND 
FAT  IN  BONE-FREE  CUTS  OF  BEEF,  1913  AND  1915. 


Calves, 

average 

per  cent. 

Yearlings, 

average 

per  cent. 

Two-year-olds, 

. average 

per  cent. 

Three-year-olds, 

average 

per  cent. 

Rib. 

Water  

49.79 

45.34 

47.58 

51.05  a 

Protein  

14.35 

13.00 

14.00 

12.97  a 

Fat  

35.42 

41.18 

37.53 

34.08  a 

Shoulder. 

Water  

67.64 

67.16 

65.17 

66.64 

Protein  

17.88 

17.82 

17.72 

17.94 

Fat  

14.11 

13.67 

16.27 

14.56 

Round. 

Water  

68.70 

69.01 

71.01  a 

68.67 

Protein  

18.88 

19.22 

21.75  a 

19.57 

Fat  

11.09 

10.91 

8.32  a 

10.41 

Loin. 

Water  

56.33 

55.15 

57.09 

56.83 

Protein  

15.26 

14.72 

15.71 

16.23 

Fat  

27.53 

28.97 

27.11 

26.36 

1_ 

(a)  Results  from  one  steer  only. 


From  the  results  in  the  foregoing  table  it  appears  that 
the  yearlings  were,  on  the  average,  a little  fatter  than  the 
other  steers ; as  judged  by  the  fat  of  the  rib  and  loin  cuts. 
The  calves  and  the  two-year-olds,  judged  in  the  same  man- 
ner, compare  favorably  with  each  other;  while  the  three-year- 
olds  show  less  fat  than  any  of  the  other  groups.  Since  the 
averages  are  the  results  of  averaging  figures  that  do  not  agree 
especially  well  with  each  other,  it  is  possible  that  no  particular 
significance  should  be  attached  to  the  small  differences  just 
noted.  However,  a comparison  of  the  data  from  these  steers 
with  those  of  the  alfalfa  hay  experiments  shows  appreciably 
higher  percentages  of  fat  in  the  rib  and  loin  cuts  of  the  former, 
but  no  marked  differences  in  the  .round  and  shoulder  cuts. 
For  comparison,  the  percentages  of  fat  in  the  bone-free  cuts 
of  meat  in  the  alfalfa  hay  experiments  are  given  below. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


73 


TABLE  26.— AVERAGE  PERCENTAGES  OF  FAT  IN  BONE-FREE  CUTS 
OF  MEAT;  ALFALFA  HAY  EXPERIMENT* 


Calves 

Yearlings 

3 . 

O * 

oj 

<V 

>* 

o 

£ 

H 

n 

2 

o 

ctf 

as 

* 

as 

.c 

Rib  

1 1 

15.91 

(20.00) 

20.09 

36.79 

Shoulder  

14.65 

14.81 

10. ',4 

24.15 

Round  

4.92 

6.85 

5.19 

8.07 

Loin  

13.09 

1 

20.04 

16.59 

24.04 

*From  Bulletin  No.  91  of  this  Experiment  Station. 


On  the  whole,  then,  there  appears  to  be  no  striking  dif- 
ference between  the  steers  of  various  ages,  so  far  as  fatness 
is  concerned,  as  judged  from  the  analysis  of  the  cuts  of  meat; 
but  the  steers  fed  on  alfalfa  and  milo  maize  meal  showed  no- 
ticeably more  fat  in  the  rib  and  loin  cuts  than  the  steers  of 
corresponding  ages  fed  on  alfalfa  alone,  excepting  the  three- 
year-olds.  In  the  alfalfa  hay  experiments  there  was  an  in- 
crease in  the  percentage  of  fat,  especially  in  the  rib  and  loin 
cuts,  with  increasing  age  of  animals ; but  no  such  relation  ap- 
pears in  the  data  of  the  alfalfa  and  milo  maize  experiments. 
This  is  no  doubt  due,  in  a large  measure,  to  the  better  fatten- 
ing qualities  of  the  alfalfa  and  milo  maize  rations,  although  the 
steers  as  a whole  were  also  in  better  condition’  of  flesh  at 
the  beginning  of  the  experiments.  \ 

Quality  of  Meat. 

Calves  anH  Yearlings.  Calves  28  and  29  and  yearlings 
22  and  23  were  the  steers  selected  for  the  comparison  of  the 
two  ages, of  steers  in  regard  to  quality  of  the  meat.  No  dis- 
tinctive difference  in  the  color  of  the  meat  of  the  two  ages 
of  steers  was  apparent.  The  meat  from  steer  28,  a calf,  was 
much  lighter  than  that  of  23,  a yearling;  but  on  the  other 
hand,  the  meat  from  calf  number  29  was  darker  than  that  of 


74 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


yearling  22.  In  other  words,  the  differences  in  color  appeared 
to  be  individual  differences  rather  than  age  differences. 

In  general,  the  meat  of  the  yearlings  appeared  a little 
firmer  than  that  of  the  calves  and  showed  a greater  abun- 
dance of  fat,  both  external  and  internal ; as  well  as  a better 
distribution  of  the  same  through  the  lean.  The  meat  of  both 
lots  of  steers  was  tender  and  juicy  and  of  good  flavor,  al- 
though there  was  nothing  about  the  flavor  that  could  be 
attributed  to  the  particular  feeds  used. 

The  meat  of  the  calves  and  yearlings  was  in  every  re- 
spect equal,  if  not  superior,  to  that  of  the  older  steers,  and  had 
the  advantage  of  being  a little  more  tender. 

Two-  and  Three-year-olds,  1915.  Steers  36  and  40  of  the 

two-year-olds  and  32  and  33  of  the  three-year-olds,  were  the 
ones  from  which  the  sample  cuts  of  meat  were  taken,  and  were 
also  the  ones  considered  more  in  detail  as  regards  quality  of 
meat. 

No  striking  differences  were  observed  between  the  cuts 
of  meats  of  the  two-year-olds  and  three-year-olds  in  reference 
to  color.  Steer  40  appeared,  in  general,  better  than  any  of  the 
other  three ; with  number  36  a close  second.  The  cuts  from 
these  steers  were,  in  general,  more  plump  and  finished  in 
appearance  than  those  of  the  three-year-olds.  As  regards 
relative  thickness  of  cuts,  steers  36  and  40  appeared  the  best, 
although  in  thickness  of  loin,  steer  33  was  a little  better  than 
36.  The  distribution  of  the  fat  through  the  lean,  producing 
the  so  called  marbled  effect,  was  most  noticeable  in  steer  40; 
with  number  33  next.  Taken  as  a whole,  the  marbling  of 
the  flesh  was  decidedly  more  pronounced  in  these  steers  than 
in  the  ones  fed  only  alfalfa  hay. 

The  fat  was  a clear  white  in  all  the  cuts.  The  flavor 
of  the  meat  was  good,  but  suggested  nothing  distinctive.  Aside 
from  the  slightly  coarser  grain  of  the  meat  from  the  three- 
year-olds  and  the  fatness  of  the  cuts  from  the  two-year-olds, 
there  was  not  much  difference  in  the  appearance  of  the  meat 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


75 


from  the  two  lots  of  steers.  The  meat  was  not  quite  as  ten- 
der as  that  of  the  younger  steers,  although  that  from  steers 
36  and  40  was  very  good.  Such  differences  as  were  observed 
between  the  two  ages  of  steers  might  easily  be  individual  dif 
ferences  and  not  necessarily  due  to  the  differences  in  the  ages 
of  the  animals. 

Messrs.  O.  A.  Danielson  and  W.  J.  Ritz  of  El  Paso,  both 
experienced  in  the  marketing  of  beef,  expressed  the  opinion 
that  in  reference  to  quality  of  meat,  the  steers  would  be  rank- 
ed as  follows:  first,  40;  second,  36;  third,  33;  and  fourth, 
32.  They  stated  that  the  meat  would  probably  be  classed  as 
grade  2 on  the  market. 

Summary  and  Conclusions 

Five  range  steers  each  of  calves,  yearlings,  two-year-olds 
and  three-year-olds  were  fed  for  a period  of  120  days;  dur- 
ing which  all  feeds  and  feed  residues  were  weighed,  sampled 
and  analyzed,  and  individual  records  were  kept  of  feeds  con- 
sumed, gains  in  live  weights  and  the  condition  or  finish  of 
the  steers.  Slaughter  tests  were  made  at  the  end  of  the 
feeding  period  and  certain  cuts  of  meat  from  representative 
steers  of  each  age  were  analyzed.  The  digestibility  of  the  ra- 
tions fed  was  also  determined,  using  two  representative  steers 
from  each  group  for  this  purpose. 

Three  sets  of  digestion  trials  were  conducted  in  the  series 
of  experiments  with  the  calves  and  yearlings,  as  follows : one 
near  the  end  of' the  first  month;  the  second  about  the  middle 
of  the  third  month  and  the  third  during  the  latter  part  of  the 
fourth  month.  In  the  experiments  with  the  two-  and  three- 
year-olds,  only  the  first  two  sets  of  digestion  trials  were  con- 
ducted. 

The  coefficients  of  digestibility  of  the  rations,  as  deter- 
mined in  the  various  trials,  are  given,  and  the  effects  of  age 
of  animal^  individuality  and  amount  of  feed  consumed  upon 
the  same  are  considered. 

The  results  of  the  digestion  trials  indicate  no  appreciable 
or  certain  superiority  of  one  age  of  animals  over  another  as 


76 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


regards  digestive  powers,  nor  do  they  show  that  any  particular 
individual  or  individuals  consistently  digested  their  rations  bet- 
ter than  others.  Apparently  the  steers  used  in  the  tests  di- 
gested their  rations  about  equally  well. 

The  variations  noticed  in  the  digestion  coefficients  among 
the  several  steers  from  one  trial  to  the  next  and  on  the  same 
trials,  apparently,  are  not  due  to  differences  in  the  amounts 
of  feed  consumed,  as  no  direct  relation  between  the  amounts 
of  feed  consumed  and  the  resulting  coefficients  was  ob- 
served. However,  the  rations  consumed  were  not  especially 
heavy  at  any  time. 

A method  is  given  for  calculating  the  digestibility  of  the 
components  of  a ration  composed  of  two  or  more  feeds  from 
the  coefficients  of  digestibility  of  the  feeds  when  fed  in  com- 
bination, but  in  different  proportions,  in  two  or  more  trials, 
and  when  no  separate  determinations  of  digestibility  of  any 
of  the  components  of  the  ration  have  been  made. 

The  coefficients  of  digestibility  of  the  alfalfa  and  milo 
maize  meal  fed  each  year  were  calculated  by  the  foregoing 
method  and  are  given  in  the  text  of  the  bulletin. 

The  digestible  nutrients  in  the  alfalfa  and  milo  maize 
meal,  as  given  in  the  bulletin,  w:re  calculated  from  the  aver- 
age composition  of  the  feeds  by  means  of  the  calculated  coef- 
ficients of  digestibility  of  the  feeds. 

The  energy  values  of  the  feeds  were  obtained  by  calcu- 
lating the  metabolizable  energy  from  the  digestible  organic 
matter  by  means  of  the  factors  proposed  by  Armsby  (pre- 
viously cited)  and  from  this  the  net  energy,  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  the  percentage  availability  of  the  metabolizable  en- 
ergy was  the  same  as  given  by  Armsby  for  alfalfa  and  maize 
meal 

The  average  daily  gains  made  by  the  different  groups  of 
steers,  per  head,  omitting  the  abnormal  or  doubtful  ones,  are  as 
follows:  calves,  1.55;  yearlings,  1.89;  two-year-olds,  2.12;  and 
three-year-olds,  1.57  pounds.  When  ,the  gains  are  calculated 
to  a common  basis  of  gains  per  day  and  head  per  1,000  pounds 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


77 


live  weight,  they  become:  calves,  2.70;  yearlings,  2.21;  two- 
year-olds,  2.25;  and  three-year-olds,  1.52  pounds.  Wlhile  the 
calves  and  three-year-olds  made  practically  the  same  gains 
per  day  and  head,  the  calves  gained  much  more  rapidly  pir 
unit  of  body  weight.  Per  unit  of  body  weight,  the  yearlings 
and  two-year-olds  made  nearly  equal  gains,  and  in  respect  to 
rate  of  gains  they  are  about  midway  between  the  calves  and 
three-year-olds. 

The  various  groups  of  steers  consumed,  on  the  average, 
the  following  amounts  of  feed,  per  day  dnd  head : calves, 
10.74;  yearlings,  17.77;  two-ycar-olds,  19.95;  and  three-year- 
olds,  19.49  pounds;  whereas,  per  1,000  pounds  live  weight 
the  amounts  are  18.80,  20.87,  20.00,  and  18.70  pounds,  res- 
pectively. The  amounts  of  feed  consumed  for  each  pound 
of  gain  are  : calves,  6.96;  yearlings,  9.57 ; two-year-olds,  9.63  ; 
and  three-year-olds,  12.60  pounds.  Although  the  calves  and 
three-year-olds  consumed  nearly  the  same  quantities  of  feed 
per  unit  of  body  weight,  the  former  required  only  a little  more 
than  half  as  much  feed  per  pound  of  gain  as  the  latter,  and 
about  two-thirds  as  much  as  the  yearlings  or  two-year-olds. 

The  nitrogen  balances  show  considerable  irregularities 
with  the  same  individuals  in  successive  trials  and  between  the 
groups  of  different  ages,  but  it  is  evident  that  the  calves  were 
gaining  in  protein  at  a much  more  rapid  rate  than  the  other 
steers.  The  data  suggest  that  the  yearlings  were  gaining  in 
protein  somewhat  more  rapidly  than  the  older  steers,  but 
owing  to  the  irregularities  in  the  results,  this  is  not  clearly 
shown. 

The  average  amount  of  energy  stored  in  each  pound  of  gain 
was  estimated  for  the  various  individuals  and  groups  of  steers,, 
and  the  results  indicate  that  it  was  least  among  the  calves  and 
highest  among  the  three-year-olds.  The  estimated  energy  stor- 
ed per  unit  of  gain  by  the  latter  was  two  and  a half  times  that 
of  the  former;  and  the  yearlings  and  two-year-olds  stored 
about  twice  as  much  energy  per  unit  of  gain  as  the  calves. 
These  results,  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  nitrogen  bal- 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


ances  and  the  amounts  of  feed  consumed  per  unit  of  gain, 
indicate  a relatively  greater  production  of  fat  by  the  older 
steers ; especially  as  compared  with  the  calves. 

Estimations  of  the  energy  content  of  the  gains  by  months 
during  the  feeding  period  show— with  the  .exception  of  the 
first  month — a tendency  towards  an  increasing  energy  con- 
tent of  gains  from  month  to  month. 

So  far  as  percentages  of  dressed  beef  are  concerned,  no 
really  significant  differences  that  can  be  ascribed  to  differ- 
ences in  ages  appear  amomg  the  different  groups  of  steers. 
However,  the  steers  fed  in  the  series  on  alfalfa  and  milo  maize 
meal,  excepting  the  three-year-olds,  yielded  considerably  high- 
er percentages  of  dressed  beef  than  the  corresponding  groups 
of  steers  in  the  alfalfa  hay  experiments.  This  is,  no  doubt, 
largely  due  to  the  better  balanced  ration  fed  in  these  experi- 
ments. 

No  distinctive  differences  are  apparent  in  reference  to 
the  wholesale  cuts  from  the  various  steers. 

The  average  results  of  the  chemical  analysis  of  the  cuts 
of  meat  from  the  different  groups  of  steers  show  no  decided 
differences  among  them,  but  the  percentages  of  fat  in  the 
rib  and  loin  cuts  are,  in  general,  about  twice  as  great  as  in 
the  corresponding  cuts  and  ages  of  steers  in  the  alfalfa  hay 
experiments.  The  fat  content  of  the  round  and  shoulder 
cuts  is  about  the  same  for  the  different  ages  of  steers  and  in 
the  two  series  of  experiments. 

In  quality  of  meat,  the  yearlings  surpassed  the  calves, 
chiefly  on  account  of  the  larger  amount  and  better  distribu- 
tion of  the  fat  through  the  lean  and  in  the  firmness  of  the 
meat.  The  meat  of  the  calves  and  yearlings  appeared  a little 
finer  in  grain  and  was  more  tender  than  that  of  the  two-  and 
three-year-olds.  All  the  meat  was  of  good  quality,  showing 
more  fat  than  the  corresponding  cuts  and  ages  of  steers  in 
the  alfalfa  hav  experiments;  but  no  distinctive  flavor  was 
noticeable. 

A tabulated  summary  of  the  main  data  of  the  experiments 
is  given  in  the  following  tables : — 


TABLE  27.— GENERAL  SUMMARY  OF  RESULTS, 


79 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES 


ss 

734.3 

931.0 

196.7 

1.64 

1.98 

1028.16 

1 723.00 

! 

1751.16 

1 8.57 

6.03 

14.60 

5.23 

! 3,7 

1 

8.90 

1 

557.50 

1 56.71 

U J991S 

734.0 

807.7 

73.7 

.61 

.79 

798.59 

694.39 

1492.98 

6.66 

5.79 

12.45 

• ' 1 

10.92| 

9.491 

; 

20.411 

502.00| 

58.24| 

rH  -H  t-H  ^ . . _ 

1 ZZ 

703.3 

999.0 

295.7 

2.46 

2.85 

1282.58 

1109.84 

2392.42 

10.69 

9.25 

19.94 

4.35| 

3.76 

8.11 

607.00 

55.84| 

| 

12  J381S 

720.0 

904.7 

184.7 

1.54 

1.88 

1238.86 

823.26 

2062.12 

1 10.33 

1 

6.86 

17.19 

6.7‘l| 

| 4.45 

11.16 

535.50| 

63.52| 

OF  J©9^S 

422.3 

588.3 

166.0 

1.38 

2.75 

669.63 

5C3.43 

1233.06 

5.58 

4.70 

10.28 

4.04! 

3.41 

7.45| 

352.501 

' 1 

60.461 

62 

^«^SS?S3S§Sr-Ssg§£ 

8 S 8 J ” i ll  " ’ S " “ 8 S 

82 

LZ 

;,-*.«i2S3SgS8SSSSiS 

1 s 1 § 1 “ ^ d “ 5 “ 

T:  ~ o s 3 a s fa  s s s~a  a s"s 

ill  ' J | 1 S “ * * “'  * * I s 

1 « 


S'  3 


I | 

MS 

in 


t 

% 

l ; 

!.  - I 

ill 
1 1 1 1 
i 1 1 1 


i 
I 
I I 
§ 


i 

it. 


1 1 

i I 

II 


I 

i t 

IS 


! ! 1 1 1 ? 1 1 1 1 1 ! I 


i 


of  feeds  in  the  above  table  are  all 


.—GENERAL  SUMMARY  OF  RESULTS, 


80  THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


f 

I 

r 

ss 

H J091S 

806.7 

! 896.7 

1 

90.0 

.75 

.89 

908.93 

700.49 

! 

1609.42 

1 

7.57 

I 5.84 

13.41 

1 

1 10.09 

1 7.79 

17.88 

482.50 

54.21 

a j s s s 1 5 1 s s s g s s 1 1 

28 

1 

1063.3  I 

1 

H247.7 

184.4 

I 1.54 

1.33 

[1371.81 

1090.60 

2462.41 

11.43 

9.09 

20.52 

! 7.42 

,90 

13.32 

1 712.50 

1 58.40 

ZS 

945.0 

1107.7 

162.7 

1.36 

1.32 

slgS-S  — SgE 

-1  7-1  <M 

12  -^9}S 

1 | a ' 

RAL  SUMMARY  OF  RESULTS, 

Two-year-olds 

833.3 

1119.3 

286.0 

2.38 

2.44 

1381.41 

1113.36 

2494.77 

11.51 

9.28 

20.79 

! 4.84 

1 3.89 

8.73 

655.50 

1 58  52 

68 

1 

894.7  | 

1 

1190.7  | 

296.0 

2.47 

2.76 

1410.08 

1142.93 

2553.01 

11.76 

9.52 

21.28 

4.76 

3.86 

8.62 

689.00 

57.18 

88  aaa^S 

*-o.og£'S8-3  8 8-S2S'SS? 

g i r - I 1 g s 06  s - s t * 

r-<  r-t  TH  CQ  . _ 

IS  Jaa^S 

g 1 a - -- 1 1 1 3 s i a s 8 i ! 

98  aaa;s 

1 ' 
| 911.7 

1 

1151.3 

239.6 

2.00 

1.96 

1234.27 

11004.96 

[2239.23 

10.29 

8.37 

18.66 

1 5.30 

| 4'03 
! 9.33 

I.  664  50 

1 

I 57  78 

TABLE  28.— GENE 

Initial  weight,  lbs 

Final  weight,  lbs.  .* 

Total  gain,  lbs 

Average  daily  gain,  lbs 

Average  daily  gain  per  1,000  los.  live  weight,  lbs.  . 

Alfalfa  hay,  total  eaten,  lbs 

Milo  maize  meal,  total  eaten,  lbs 

Total  feed  eaten,  lbs 

Alfalfa  hay  eaten  per  day,  lbs 

Milo  maize  meal  eaten  per  day,  lbs 

Total  feed  eaten  per  day,  lbs 

Alfalfa  hay  eaten  per  pound  of  gain,  lbs 

Milo  maize  meal  eaten  per  pound  of  gain,  lbs. 

Total  feed  eaten  per  pound  of  gain,  lbs 

Dressed  beef,  lbs 

n^poRPil  beef,  per  cent  

The  amounts  of  feeds  in  the  above  table  are  all  on  a dry 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES 


81 


TABLE  29.— GENERAL  SUMMARY  OF  RESULTS. 
AVERAGES. 


Calves  (a) 

■ 

Yearlings  (b) 

Two-year-olds  (c) 

Three-year-olds  (d) 

Initial  weight,  lbs 

492.6 

734.0 

877.9 

953.9 

Final  weight,  lbs 

678.9 

960.1 

1131.6 

1142.1 

Total  gain,  lbs 

186.3 

226.1 

253.7 

188.3 

Average  daily  gain,  lbs 

1.55 

1.89 

2.12 

1.57 

Average  daily  gain  per  1,000  lbs.  live 
weight,  lbs 

2.70 

2.21 

2.25 

1.52 

Alfalfa  hay,  total  eaten,  lbs 

721.08 

1209.80 

1322.43 

1304.73 

Milo  maize  meal,  total  eaten,  lbs 

567.41 

921.64 

1073.71 

1037.52 

Total  feed  eaten,  lbs 

1288.49 

2131.44 

2396.14 

2342.25 

Alfalfa  hay  eaten  per  day,  lbs 

6. Ox 

10.09 

11.02 

10.84 

Milo  maize  meal  eaten  per  day,  lbs 

4.73 

7.68 

8.93 

8.65 

Total  feed  eaten  per  day,  lbs 

10.74 

17.77 

19.95 

19.49 

Alfalfa  hay  eaten  per  pound  of  gain,  lbs. 

3.90 

5.34 

5.19 

7.10 

Milo  maize  meal  eaten  per  pound  of  gain, 

lbs 

3.06 

4.23 

4.44 

5.50 

Total  feed  eaten  per  pound  of  gain,  lbs.  . . 

6.96 

9.57 

9.63 

12.60 

Dressed  beef,  lbs 

395.50 

583.10 

659.25 

654.00 

Dressed  beef,  per  cent  

59.92 

59.49 

58.40 

58.87 

The  amounts  of  feeds  in  the  above  table  are  all  on  a dry  matter  basis. 

a.  Average  omitting  steers  26  and  27. 

b.  Average,  omitting  steer  24. 

c.  Average,  omitting  steer  37. 

d Average,  omitting  steers  31  and  35. 


82 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


Acknowledgments. 

A number  of  persons  have  directly  and  indirectly  been 
connected  with  these  experiments  and  deserve  mention.  Ack- 
nowledgments are  due  Dr.  R.  F.  Hare  for  laboratory  space 
during  the  earlier  part  of  the  experiments  and  also  for  ten- 
dering the  services  of  his  assistants  in  connection  with  cer- 
tain parts  of  the  work.  Miessrs.  S.  R.  Mitchell,  Jose  Quin- 
tero, Stanley  Brown  and  Arthur  Laferriere  have  , assisted 
with  the  analytical  work,  and  the  last  named  also  performed 
a considerable  part  of  the  calculations  and  tabulations  in  con- 
nection with  the  preparation  of  this  bulletin.  The  steers  were 
judged  by  Mr.  J.  R.  Meeks  in  the  experiments  of  1915.  The 
first  year  the  steers  were  tamed  and  fed  by  Mr.  L.  W.  lies, 
and  the  second  year  by  Mr.  W.  R.  Ellis. 

The  authors  hereby  express  their  appreciation  of  the  ser- 
vices rendered  by  these  persons  in  connection  with  the  experi- 
ments. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES 


Fig. 


— Calves.  Experiment  of  1913;  left,  at  beginning  of • test : right,  at 
end;  numbers  of  steers,  from  top  to  bottom,  26,  27,  28,  29  and  30 


84 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


Fig.  6. — Yearlings,  Experiment  of  1913;  left,  at  beginning  of  test;  right,  at 
end;  numbers  of  steers,  from  top  to  bottom,  21,  22,  23,  24,  and  25. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGE’S. 


85 


Fig.  7. — Two-year-olds,  Experiment  of  1915;  left,  at  beginning  of  test, 
right,  at  end;  numbers  of  steers,  from  top  to  bottom,  36,  37,  38, 
39  and  40. 


86 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


Fig.  8. — Three-year-olds,  Experiment  of  1915;  left,  at  beginning  of  test; 
right,  at  end;  numbers  of  steers,  from  top  to  bottom,  31,  32,  33, 
34  and  35. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGE’S. 


rear  view  of  ribs,  loins  and  rounds. 


88 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


FTig.  10.— Cuts  of  meat  from  two-year-olds  36  and  40,  and  three-year-olds 
32  and  33;  from  top  to  bottom,  front  view  of  ribs,  rear  view  of  ribs, 
loins  and  rounds. 


APPENDIX 


90 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


APPENDIX. 

Feeds  and  feed  residues,  calves  Table  30 

Feeds  and  feed  residues,  yearlings  Table  31 

Feeds  and  feed  residues,  two-year-olds Table  32 

Feeds  and  feed  residues,  three-year-olds Table  33 

Composition  of  feed  residues,  1913 Table  34 

Composition  of  feed  ^residues,  1915 Table  35 

Feeds,  feed  residues  and  feces,  digestion  trial  I,  1913. ..... .Table  36 

Feeds,  feed  residues  and  feces,  digestion  trial  II,  1913 Table  37 

Feeds,  feed  residues  and  feces,  digestion  trial  III,  1913 Table  38 

Feeds,  feed  residues  and  feces,  digestion  trial  I,  1915 Tkble  39 

Feeds,  feed  residues  and  feces,  digestion  trial  II,  1915 Table  40 

Composition  of  feed  residues  and  feces,  digestion  trials,  1913 . . Table  41 
Composition  of  feed  residues  and  feces,  digestion  trials,  1915.  .Table  42 

Weights  of  excreta,  1913 Table  43 

Weights  of  excreta,  1915 Table  44 

Nitrogea  in  urines Table  45 

Water  drunk  during  digestion  trials,  1913 Table  46 

Water  drunk  during  digestion  trials,  1915 Table  47 

Live  weights  of  steers,  1913 Table  48 

Live  weights  of  steers,  1915 Table  49 

Results  of  slaughter  tests,  weights,  1913 Table  50 

Results  of  slaughter  tests,  percentages,  1913 Table  51 

Results  of  slaughter  tests,  weights,  1915  Table  52 

Results  of  slaughter  tests,  percentages,  1915 Table  53 

Weights  of  fore  and  hind  quarters,  and  of  wholesale  cuts  in 

right  half  carcass Table  54 

Percentages  of  fore  and  hind  quarters,  and  of  wholesale  cuts 

in  right  half  carcass  Table  55 

Percentages  of  bone,  lean  and  visible  fat  in  the  various  cuts 

of  beef  Table  56 

Percentages  of  water,  protein  and  fat  in  the  bone-free  cuts 
of  beef  .Table  57 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES 


91 


TABLE  30.— FEED  AND  FEED  RESIDUES,  1913. 
Calves. 


Alfalfa 

hay 

Milo  maize  meal 

Feed  residues 

Amount  fed, 
pounds 

Amount  eaten, 
pounds 

Dry  matter  eaten, 
pounds 

Amount  fed, 

pounds 

Amount  eaten, 

pounds 

Dry  matter  eaten,  j 

pounds 

Total, 

pounds 

Alfalfa  hay, 

pounds 

Milo  maize  meal, 

pounds 

Steer  26. 

| 

| 

First  month  

172.90 

170.05 

154.88 

86.45 

77.04 

66.83 

12.26 

2.85 

9.41 

Second  month  .... 

137.33 

130.87 

119.20 

113.74 

92.39 

80.15 

27.81 

6.46 

21.35 

Third  month  

137.17 

126.63 

115.33 

137.17 

102.34 

88.78 

45.37 

10.54 

34.83 

Fourth  month  .... 

263.67 

252.37 

229.86 

263.67 

226.32 

196.33 

48.65 

11.30 

37.35 

Total  

1711.07 

679.92 

619.27 

601.03 

498.09 

432.09 

134.091 

31.15 

102.94 

Steer  27.  | 

First  month  

250.63 

238.33 

217.07 

126.24 

120.97 

104.94 

17.57 

12.30 

5.27 

Second  month  .... 

162.25 

150.39 

136.98 

135.17 

130.09 

112.85 

16.94 

11.86 

5.08 

Third  month  

178.57 

139.58 

127.13 

178.57 

161.87 

140.42 

55.69 

38.99 

16.70 

Fourth  month  .... 

178.57 

152.77 

139.14 

178.57 

167.52 

145.32 

36.85 

25.80 

11.05 

Total  

770.02 

681.071620.32 

618.55 

580.45 

503.54 

127.05 

88.95 

38.10 

Steer  28. 

First  month  

1283.73 

212.93 

193.94 

140.52 

129.09 

111.99 

82.24 

70.81 

11.43 

Second  month  .... 

1203.31 

201.40 

183.44 

106.40 

105.93 

91.89 

2.38 

1.91 

.47 

Third  month  

1204.15 

198.14 

180.47 

204.14 

202.66 

175.81 

7.49 

6.01 

1.48 

Fourth  month  

|227.08|226.19 

206.01 

|227.08|226.71 

196.77 

1.26 

.89 

.37 

Total  

1918.261838.54 

763.86 

1678.141664.39 

576.46  1 

| 93.371 

79.62 

13.75 

Steer  29.  ] 

1 

1 

| 

| 

First  month  

1248.11 

|235.45|214.45 

124.081111.84 

97.02 

24.90 

12.66 

12.24 

Second  month  ! 

1172.89 

159.77|145.52 

142.671129.98 

112.76 

25.81 

13.12 

12.69 

Third  month  

1177.91 

165.231150.49, 

177. 91 1165.65 1143.70 

24.94 

12.68 

12.26 

Fourth  month  .... 

(240.75 

240.751219.28 

240.75|  240.75|  208. 85 

Total  

1839.66|801.201729.74 

685.411648.221562.33 

75.65 

38.46 

37.19 

Steer  30.  I 

1 

! 

1 

First  month  

|241.10|197. 751180.11 

120.571112.501 

97.59 

51*.  42 

43.35 

8.07 

Second  month  .... 

|196.98|  191.29|  174. 23 

162.15|161.34|139.96 

6.50 

5.69 

.81 

Third  month  

I 176.37| 165.47|150.71 

176.371173.971150.92 

13.30 

10.90 

2.40 

Fourth  month  ... 

1205.471180.701164.58 

205. 47(201.68 1174. 96 

28.56 

24.77 

3.79 

Total  

!819.921735.21|669.63 

(664.56(649. 49(563.43  | 

| 99.78 

84.71|  15.07 

92 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  31.— FEED  AND  FEED  RESIDUES.  1913. 

Yearlings. 


Alfalfa  hay 


Milo  maize  meal 


Amount  fed,  i 

pounds 

Amount  eaten, 
pounds 

Dry  matter  eaten, 

pounds 

Amount  fed, 

pounds 

Amount  eaten,  | 

pounds 

Dry  matter  eaten. 

pounds 

Total, 

pounds 

Alfalfa  hay, 

pounds 

Milo  maize  meal, 

pounds 

Steer  21. 

.first  month  

365.97 

363.61 

331.18 

183.2,0 

172.27 

149.44 

13.29 

2.36 

10.93 

Second  month  . . . 

357.74 

351.19 

319.86 

295.97 

2,65.74 

230.53 

36.78 

6.55 

30.23 

Third  month  

350.54 

338.11 

307.95 

350.54 

293.17 

254.32 

69.80 

12.43 

57.37 

Fourth  month  . . . 

332.02 

307.28| 

| 279.87 

332.02 

217.83 

184.97 

138.93 

24.74 

114.19 

Total  

1406.27 

1360.19 

1238.86 

1161.73 

949.01 

823.26 

258.80 

46.08 

212.72 

Steer  22. 

First  month  

378.69 

366.70 

333.99 

189.58 

188.35 

163.39 

13.22 

11.99 

1.23 

Second  month  . . . 

401.15 

399.71 

364.06 

332.81 

332.63 

288.56 

1.62 

1.44 

.18 

Third  month  

391.98 

351.15 

319.83 

391.98 

389.21 

337.64 

43.61 

40.83 

2.78 

Fourth  month  . . . 

390.22 

290.63 

264.71 

390.22 

369.16 

320.25 

120.67 

99.59 

21.05 

Total  

1562.04 

1408.19 

1282.58 

1304.59 

1279.3511109.84 

179.09 

153.85 

25.24 

Steer  23. 

First  month  

372.14 

370.88 

337.80 

182.80 

182.22 

158.08 

1.84 

1.26 

.58 

Second  month  . . . 

355.74 

354.48 

322.86 

294.36 

293.77 

254.84 

1.85 

1.26 

.59 

Third  month 

360.68 

349.80 

31o.60 

360.68 

355.54 

308.43 

16.02 

10.88 

5.14 

Fourth  month  . . . 

370.38 

340.61 

310.23 

370.38 

356.30 

309.09 

43.85 

29.77 

14.08 

Total  

1458.94 

1415.7711289.49 

1208.22 

1187.83 

1030.44 

63.57 

43.17 

20.39 

Steer  24. 

First  month  

349.74 

245.64 

223.73 

174.87 

161.56 

140.15 

117.41 

104.10 

13.31 

Second  month  . . . 

249.55 

240.38 

218.94 

209.43 

207.03 

179.60 

11.57 

9.17 

2.40 

Third  month  .... 

223.11 

208.05 

189.49 

223.11 

219.21 

190.16 

18.96 

15.06 

3.90 

Fourth  month  . . . 

244.72 

182.73 

166.43 

244.72  212.66 

184.48 

94.05 

61.99 

32.06 

Total  

1067.12 

876.80 

| 798.59 

852.13!  800.46 

694.39 

241.99 

190.32 

51.67 

Steer  25. 

First  month  

327.14 

324.58 

295.63 

163-531  154.20 

133.77 

11.89' 

2.56 

9.33 

Second  month  . . . 

266.05 

263.01 

239.55 

221.681  210.59 

182.69 

14.13 

3.04 

11.09 

Third  month  .... 

284.40 

265.23 

241.55 

284.401  214.61 

186.17 

88.96 

19.17 

69.79 

Fourth  month  . . . 

284.40 

276.05 

251.43 

284.40|  254.03 

220.37 

38.72 

8.34 

30.37 

Feed  residues 


RANGE  STEERS  OB'  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


93 


TABLE  32— FEED  AND  FEED  RESIDUES,  1915. 
Two*year-olds. 


| Alfalfa  hay 


Milo  maize  meal 


Feed  residues 


Amount  fed, 
pounds 

Amount  eaten, 

pounds 

Dry  matter  eaten, 
pounds 

Amount  fed, 

pounds 

Amount  eaten, 

pounds 

Dry  matter  eaten, 
pounds 

Total, 

pounds 

Alfalfa  hay, 
pounds 

Steer  36. 

• 

First  month  

297.63 

297.63 

269.22 

148.80 

148.80 

129.93 

Second  month  . . 

336.93 

336.93 

305.56 

275.68 

275.68 

240.72 

Third  month  . . . 

332.01 

332.01 

301.10 

$32.01 

332.01 

289.91 

Fourth  month  . . 

394.41 

394.41 

357.69 

394.41 

394.41 

344.40 

Total 

1360.98 

1360.98 

1234.27 

1150.90 

1150.90 

1004.96 

Steer  37. 

First  month  

238.55 

234.96 

213.09 

126.76 

123.96 

108.24 

6.39 

3.59 

Second  month  . . . 

210.18 

210.18 

190.61 

169.29 

169.29 

147.82 

Third  month  . . . 

218.25 

218.25 

197.93 

218.25 

218.25 

190.58 

Fourth  month  . . 

218.25 

217.93 

197.64 

218.25 

215.76 

188.40 

2.81 

.32 1 

Total  

885.23 

881.32 

799.27 

732.55 

727.26 

635.04 

| 9.20 

3.91 

Steer  38. 

First  month  .... 

317.46 

317.46 

287.90 

158.73 

158.73 

138.60 

Second  month  . . 

338.25 

338.25 

306.76 

275.24 

275.24 

240.34 

Third  month  

332.01 

331.70 

300.82 

332.01 

331.94 

289.85 

.38 

.31 

Fourth  month  . . 

406.31 

406.31 

368.48 

406.31 

406.31 

354.79 

Total  

1394.03 

1393.7211263.96 

1172.29 

1172.2211023.58 

.38 

.31 

Steer  39. 

1 

1 

First  month 

355.17 

355.17 

| 322.10 

177.58 

177.58 

1 155.06 

Second  month  . . 

403.49 

403.49 

| 365.93 

326.99 

326.99 

| 285.53 

Third  month  . . . 

389.34 

386.69 

| 350.69 

389.34 

389.20 

| 339.85 

2.79 

2.65 

Fourth  month  . . 

415.13 

409.49 

| 371.37 

415.13|  415.13 

j 362.49 

5.64 

5.64 

Total  

1563.13 

1554.8411410.08 

1309.0411308:90 

1142.93 

8.43 

8.29 

Steer  40. 

1 

First  month  .... 

359.58 

359.58 

| 326.10 

179.79 

179.79 

156.99 

Second  month  . . 

354.56 

354.56 

| 321.55 

286.16|  286.16 

249.87 

Third  month  . . . 

382.72 

382.72 

| 347.09 

382.72|  382.72 

334.19 

Fourth  month  . . 

426.37 

426.37 

| 386.67 

426.37|  426.37 

372.31 

Total  

1523.23 

1523.2311381.41 

1 

1275.04|1275.04 

1 

1113.36 

2.80 


2A9 

5.20 


.07 

^07 


.14 


.14 


Milo  maize  meal, 

! pounds 


94 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  33.— FEED  AND  FEED  RESIDUES,  1915. 
Three -year-olds. 


1/ 

Alfalfa  hay  I 

Milo 

maize 

meal 

Feed  residues 

Amount  fed, 
pounds 

Amount  eaten, 
pounds 

Dry  matter  eaten, 

pounds 

Amount  fed, 

pounds 

Amount  eaten, 

pounds 

Dry  matter  eaten, 

pounds 

Total, 

pounds  ^ 

Alfalfa  hay, 

pounds 

Milo  maize  meal, 

pounds 

Steer  31. 

First  month  

317.46 

315.51 

286.14 

158.73 

157.20 

137.27 

3.48 

1.95 

1.53 

Second  month  . . 

338.25 

338.25 

306.76 

275.24 

275.24 

240.34 

Third  month  . . . 

285.49 

237.88 

215.73 

285.49 

232.99 

203.45 

100.11 

47.61 

52.60 

Fourth  month  . . 

259.04 

254.12 

230.46 

259.04 

256.11 

223.64 

7.85 

4.92 

2.93 

Total  

1200.24 

1145.76 

1039.09 

978.50 

921.54 

804.70 

111.44 

54.48 

56.96 

Steer  32. 

First  month  

358.25 

358.25 

324.90 

179.13 

179.13 

156.42 

Second  month  . . 

381.47 

381.47 

345.96 

308.39 

308.39 

269.29 

Third  month  . . . 

321.59 

321.59 

291.65 

320.77 

320.77 

280.10 

Fourth  month  . . 

363.75 

363.75 

329.88 

363.75 

363.75 

317.63 

Total  | 

1425.06 

1425.06 

1292.39 

1172.04 

1172.04 

1023.44 

Steer  33. 

First  month  j 

396.84 

396.84 

359.89 

198.42 

198.42 

173.26 

Second  month  . . 

376.83 

376.83 

341.75 

311.47 

311.47 

271.98 

Third  month  . . . 

364.64 

364.53 

330.58 

364.64 

364.63 

318.39 

.12 

.11 

.01 

Fourth  month 

374.45|  374.45 

339.59 

374.45 

374.45 

326.97 

Total  ' 

1512.76 

1512.65 

1371.81 

1248.98 

1248.97 

1090.60 

.12 

.11 

.01 

Steer  34. 

First  month  

335.32 

332.72 

301.74 

167.11 

165.07 

144.14 

4.64 

2.60 

2.04 

Second  month  . 

323.39 

323.22 

293.13 

260.61 

260.61 

227.56 

Third  month  . . . 

334.23 

334.23 

303.11 

334.23 

334.23 

291.85 

Fourth  month 

383.61 

377.13 

342.02|  383.61|  383.61 

334.97 

6.48 

6.48 

Total  

11376.55 

1367.30 

1240.00 

1145.5611143.52! 

| 998.52 

11.12 

9.08 

2.04 

Steer  35. 

| 

First  month 

| 312.40 

298.96 

271.13 

153.55' 

143.08 

124.94 

23.91 

13.44 

10.47 

Second  month  . . 

| 215.61 

215.61 

195.54 

171.24|  171.24 

149.53 

Third  month  . . 

| 209.44 

209.21 

189.73 

209.44|  209.44 

182.88 

.23 

.23 

Fourth  month 

| 278.45 

278.45|  252.53 

278.45|  278.45 

243.14 

Total  

J1015.90 

1002.23|  908.93 

1 

812.68 

j 802.21 

700.49 

24.14 

13.67 

10.47 

Composite  feed  residue  samples' 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


95 


;uao  jod 
08  "duioo 

89.04 

9.91 

12.46 

2.34 

26.19 

1.27 

47.83 

100.00 

2.492 

1.994 

.498 

luoo  aad 
‘68  duioo 

89.31 

9.33 

12.53 

1.79 

16.09 

2.25 

58.01 

iooToo 

2.385 

2.005 

.380 

}uao  aad 
‘86  ’duioo 

86.83 

8.47 

13.37 

2.59 

24.17 

1.98 

49.42 

100.00 

2.691 

2.139 

.552 

}uao  aad 
■LZ  "duioo 

1 91.38 

8.84 

13.50 

2.44 

21.37 

2.10 

51.75 

100.00 

2.680 

2.160 

.520 

luao  aad 
‘92  duioo 

89.71  | 

| 4.68 

12.50 

1.06 

8.49 

2.02 

71.25 

100.00 

2.225 

2.000 

.225 

auao  aad 
‘S2  "duioo 

89.36 

4.68 

12.49 

1.27 

8.03 

2.61 

70.92 

100.00 

2.269 

1.999 

.270 

}uao  jad 

•fZ  "duioo 

90.32 

8.73 

12.92 

2.52 

23.91 

1.77 

| 50.15 
100,00 

2.603 

2.067 

.536 

1U80  aad 

‘82  duioo 

91.63 

8.58 

12.27 

2.23 

'20.78 

1.94 

54.20 
100.00  | 

2.438 

1.963 

.475 

1 

}U90  J9d 

‘28  "duioo 

92.87 

| 9.31 

t 13/08 

2.61 

26.54 

1.44 

! 

1 47.02  | 
100.00“  1 

2.649 

2.093 

| .556 

)U99  J9d 

‘12  -duioo 

I 

90.05 

5.77 

12.96 

1.25 

7.00 

3.01 

1 

| 70.01 
1100.00  1 
I 2.339 
2.074 

1 .265 

1 H 

<D 


0 o 


5<  ^ X 


H P-  ^ 


♦Composites  of  all  feed  residues  collected  from  the  respective  steers 
during  the  feeding  period  exclusive  of  digestion  trials. 


FEED  RESIDU 


96 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


8* 

£ 


SI 
1 1 
|S 

U 

o O 


}U8D  J8d 

‘qiuoui  qpmoj 
‘6S  J991S 

l mfi  ;|  P 

1U80  J8d 

‘muouj  paiq; 

‘68  J99JS 

91.43 

7.66 

8.35 

1.66 

41.17 

1.11 

40.05 

100.00 

1.687 

1.334 

.353 

}U80  J8d 

‘q^uoui  paiqi 
‘88 

94.02 

4i!oi 

.68 

41.92 

100.00 

1.652 

1.260 

.392 

luao  aad 
•q;uoui  qianoj 
‘IS  JO»IS 

i mni  ip 

}U80  aad 
'ipuoui  pajqi 
‘28  -iea^S 

| !s5fSj|is 

}U8D  J8d 

‘qiuoui  qianoj 

TS  -W91S 

i 

luao  aad 
‘q^uoui  qianoj 

T8  J93»S 

| 90.5S  I1 

7.52 

11.94 

1.74 

2l:il 

51.51 
"j  100. 00 

2.281 

1.910 

.371 

1U80  J9d 

‘qiuoui  paiqi 
‘IS  &&18 

1 

89.38  | 

5.73 

12.30 

.48 

15.00 

2.xl 

64.38 

100.00 

2.0721 

1 1.969 

.103 

}U88  J8d 
‘q^uoui  isatj 

* ‘SJ88}S  8q;  IIV 

88.16  \ 
| 

8.46  1 

12.70  | 

1.81 
23.12 
1.88  i 
52.03 
1100.00 

2.417 

2.032 

.385 

RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES 


97 


TABLE  36.- 


-FEED.  FEED  RESIDUES,  AND  FECES,  DIGESTION  TRIAL 
F,  1913. 


Dry  matter 

m 

>> 

tn 

c$ 

s 

TJ 

A 

W 1 

o 

bp 

"<3 

£ 

2 1 

> fee 

S-. 

£ M 

c 

bo 

>> 

A 

£ 

4 

<0 

' 

"a!  j 

a 

TJ 

2 

CD 

O 

5-- 

<D 

£ 

£ 

Ph 

H 

1 ^ 

Steer  22. 

1 

1 

! 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

10 

56,600 

89.63 

50,730.6 

5,073.1 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  

10 

28,300 

86.11 

24,369.1 

2,436.9 

Uneaten  residues  

10 

2,950 

88.71 

2,616.9 

261.7 

Feces  

10 

113,955 

21.41 

24,397.8  | 

| 2,439.8 

Feces  from  duct  

12 

160.5  | 

13.4 

Total  feces  

1 

! 2,453.2 

Steer  24. 

| 

| 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

10 

54,600 

89.63 

43,938.0  | 

4,893.8 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  

10 

27,300 

86.11 

23,508.0 

[ 2,350.8 

Uneaten  residues  

10 

42,730 

87.97 

37,589.6 

1 3,759.0 

Feces  

10 

,55,135 

23.16 

12,769.3 

1,276.9 

Feces  from  duct  

12 

120.5 

10.0 

Total  feces  

1 

1 

1 

1,286.9 

Steer  28. 

| 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

10 

| 42,900 

89.63 

38,451.3 

3,845.1 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  '. . . | 

10 

21,600 

86.11 

18,599.8 

1,860.0 

Uneaten  residues  

10 

| 21,565 

88.46 

19,076.4 

1,907.6 

Feces  

10 

47.090 

23.14 

10,896.6 

1,089.7 

Feces  from  duct  

12 

45.7 

3.8 

Total  feces  

1 

1 ,093.5 

Steer  30. 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

10 

36,200 

89.63 

32,446.1 

3,244.6 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  

10 

18,100 

86.11 

15,585.9 

1,558.6 

Uneaten  residues  

10 

7,975 

87.30 

6,962.1 

. 696.2 

Feces  

10 

| 57,555 

24.69 

14.210.3 

1,421.0 

Feces  from  duct  

| 12 

1 

j 35.8 

j 3.0 

Total  feces  

i 

I 

1 

1 

j 1,424.0 

1 

98 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  37.— FEED,  FEED  RESIDUES,  AND  FECES,  DIGESTION  TRIAL 
II,  1913. 


Number  of  days 

Fresh  weight, 

grams 

Dry  matter 

Per  cent 

Total,  grams 

Per  day,  grams  | 

Steer  22. 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

10 

58,000 

90.25 

52,345.0 

5,234.5 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  

10 

| 58,000 

86.71 

50,291.8 

5,029.2 

Uneaten  residues  

10 

( 16,475 

90.54 

14,916.4 

1,491.6 

Feces  

10 

|120,810 

22.19 

26,807.7 

2,680.8 

Feces  from  duct  

11 

1 

214.2 

19.5 

Total  feces  

I 

f 

2,700.3 

Steer  24. 

1 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

10 

1 30,000 

90.25 

27,075.0 

2,707.5 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  

10 

30,000 

86.71 

26,013.0 

2,601.3 

Uneaten  residues  

1 10 

1 3,915 

90.48 

3,542.2 

354.2 

Feces  

1 io 

| 70,820 

20.84 

14,758.9 

1,475.9 

Feces  from  duct  

! ii 

! 

1 244.2 

22.2 

Total  feces  

| 

1,498.1 

Steer  28. 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

10 

28,000 

90.25 

25,270.0 

2,527.0 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  

10 

28,000 

86.71 

24,278.8 

2,427.9 

Feces  

1 10 

65,175 

23.82 

15,524.7 

1,552.5 

Feces  from  duct  | 

1 11 

| 118.3  ] 

10.7 

Total  feces  4 

1 

1 

1 

I 1,563.2 

Steer  30. 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

10 

24,000 

90.25 

21,660.0 

2,166.0 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  

10 

24,000 

86.71 

20,810.4  | 

2,081.0 

Uneaten  residues  

10 

2,975 

90.41 

2,689.7 

269.0 

Feces  

10 

57,200 

22.18 

12,687.0 

1,268.7 

Feces  from  duct  , 

11 

I 

113.4 

10.3 

Total  feces | 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

! 

1 ! 
■V  | 

1,279.0 

RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGE’S. 


99 


- EE D,  FEED  RESIDUES  AND  FECES,  DIGESTION  TRIAL 
III,  1913. 


Number  of  days 

Fresh  weight, 

grams 

| ' 

Per  cent 

<< 

Total,  grams  3 

- ? 

Per  day,  grams  j 

Steer  22. 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

10 

58,000 

92.16 

53,452.8 

5,345.3 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  

10 

58,000 

87.44 

50,715.2 

5,071.5 

Uneaten  residues  

10 

31,745 

91.91 

29,176.8 

2,917.7 

Feces  

10 

| 98,795 

21.17 

20,914.9 

2,091.5 

Feces  from  duct  

11  1 

251.9 

22.9 

Total  feces 

2,114  4 

Steer  24. 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

10 

38,000 

92.16 

35,020.8 

3,502.1 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  

10 

38,000 

87.44 

33,227.2 

3,322.7 

Uneaten  residues  

10 

31,885 

90.11 

28,731.6 

2,873.2 

Feces  

10 

71,975 

15.54 

11,184.9 

. 1,118.5 

Feces  from  duct  

11 

158.9 

14.4 

Total  feces  | 

i 

1,132.9 

Steer  28. 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

10 

32,000 

92.16 

29,491.2 

2,949.1 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  

10 

32,000 

87.44 

I 27,890.8 

2,798.1 

Uneaten  residues  

10. 

300 

92.73 

| 278.2 

27.8 

Feces  

10 

82,355 

21.40 

| 17,623.9 

1,762.4 

Feces  from  duct  ....... 

11 

I 287.2 

26.1 

Total  feces  

! 

1 

1,788.5 

Steer  30. 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

10 

| 30,000 

92.16 

| 27,648.0 

2,764.8 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  

10 

| 30,000 

87.44 

| 26,232.0 

2,623.2 

Uneaten  residues  

I 10 

10,260 

91.19 

I 9,356.0 

935.6 

Feces  

1 10 

56,835 

23.52 

1 13,367.6 

1,336.8 

Feces  from  duct  

1 11 

| 190.9 

17.3 

Total  feces  

1 

T354.1 

100 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  39.— FEED,  FEED  RESIDUES,  AND  FECES,  DIGESTION  TRIAL 
I,  1915. 


Dry  matter 

>> 

d 

s 

'C 

s: 

d 

v-l 

■ o 

be 

'S 

c 

3 

bo 

t* 

c 

be 

0> 

e s 

D 

o 

d 

n 

£ 

CG 

a 

3 

' g be 

<u 

! o 

a> 

£ 

fo  ' 

F1 

& 

Steer  31. 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  .... 

10 

10 

10 

48.000 

24.000 
25 

oo  on 

AO  O 

4,266.7 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  

oo.oy 

86.25 

*±^,00  i .4 
90  700  O 

Uneaten  residues  

U\Jy  ( UU.II 

2 070  0 
2^3 

22,6 

Feces  

10 

If) 

115  220 

23.54 

27  122  g 

Feces  from  duct  

<2.7 

2,712.3 
4 8 

Total  feces  

Steer  33. 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

10 

10 

1 10 

60,000 

30,000 

155,390 

88.89 

86.25 

19.93 

53.334.0 

25.875.0 

1 

30,969.2 

5.333.4 

2.587.5 

| 3,096.9 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  

Feces  

Feces  from  duct  

i 15 

87.5  1 

l 5.8 

Feces  spilled  in  stalls  I 

10  ! 

26.6  1 

2.7 

Total  feces  

| i 

| 

| 

| 3,105.4 

Steer  36. 

| 

, 1 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

10  1 
10  1 

45,000 

22,500 

88.89  | 
86.25  | 

40,000.5  i 
19,406.3  | 

4,000.1 

1,940.6 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  | 

Feces  | 

10  | 

107.060 

20.82  J 

22.289.9  | 

2.229,0 

Feces  from  duct  | 

15  | 

55.4  ] 

3.7 

Total  feces  1 

| 

| 

1 

2,232.7 

Steer  38. 

1 

I 

I 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  | 

10  I 

48,000 

88.89 

42,667.2 

4,266.7 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  | 

10  ! 

24,000 

86.25 

20,700.0  1 

2,070.0 

Feces  

10  -| 

112,437 

19.55 

1 

21,981.4  | 
50.9  1 

2,198.1 

:8.5 

Feces  from  duct  

6 I 

Feces  from  duct  

9 1 

47.6  1 

-5.3 

Feces  spilled  in  stall  | 

1°  ,1 

1 

37.5  1 

3.8 

Total  feces  I 

__J. 

1 

_ 1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2,015.7 

RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


10L 


TABLE  40.— FEED,  FEED  RESIDUES,  AND  FECES,  DIGESTION  TRIAL 
II,  1915. 


■ 

Number  of  days 

Fresh  weight, 

grams 

Per  cent 

Dry  matt 

£ 

aJ 

Sc 

o 

s-t 

CP  . 

Per  day,  grams 

Steer  31. 

! 

1 

I 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

10  | 50,000 

89.73 

44,865.0 

4,486.5 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  

10  | 50,000 

86.65 

43,325.0 

4,332.5 

Uneaten  residues  

10  j 36,525 

87.68 

32,025.1 

3,202.5 

Feces  

10  | 84,025 

21.01 

1 17,653.7 

i 1,765.4 

Feces  from  duct  

15  | 

93.5 

6.2 

Total  feces  ! 

1,771.6 

Steer  33. 

j 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

10  | 55,000 

89.73 

49,351.5  | 

4,935.2 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  

10  I 55,000 

86.65 

47,657.5  | 

4,765.8 

Feces  

10  |178,245 

18.95 

33,777.4  | 

3,377.7 

Feces  from  duct  

15  | I 

207.9  1 

13.9 

Feces  spilled  in  stall  

10  ! 

| 80.5  | 

8.1 

Total  feces  | 

1 ' 1 

1 1 

I 

3,399.7 

Steer  36. 

| 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

1 10  | 50,000 

| 89.73 

| 44,865.0  1 

4,486.5 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  

I 10  | 50,000 

86.65 

43,325.0  j 

4,332.5 

Feces  

| 10  ’143.390 

21.71 

| 31,129.9  | 

3,113.0 

Feces  from  duct  ! 

I 15  1 ! 

119.8  1 

8.0 

Feces  spilled  in  stall  | 

io  ; 

! 

19.2  | 

1.9 

Total  feces  1 

1 

i | 

3,122.9 

Steer  38. 

1 

1 

1 

Alfalfa  hay  fed  

| 10  1 50,000  ] 

| 89.73 

| 44,865.0  | 

4,486.5 

Milo  maize  meal  fed  

[ 10  | 50,000  | 

86.65  1 

1 43,325.0  | 

4,332.5 

Uneaten  residues  

| 10  1 60  I 

| 90.28 

| 54.2  1 

5.4 

Feces  I 

| 10  1138,615  | 

20.80  1 

28,831.9 

2,883.2 

Feces  from  duct  1 

1 13  1 

139.7 

10.7 

Feces  from  duct  1 

! 2 : i 

205.0 

102.5 

Feces  spilled  in  stall  I 

! 10  ! ! 

85.4 

8.5 

Total  feces  | 

1 

1 1 
I - J 

3,004.9 

102 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  41.— COMPOSITION  OF  FEED  RESIDUES  AND  FECES,  1913. 
Percentages  of  dry  matter  and  nutrients  In  dry  matter. 


Feed  residues 

Fece9 

Steer  22, 
per  cent 

Steer  24, 

per  cent 

Steer  28, 

per  cent 

Steer  30, 

per  cent 

Steer  22, 

per  cent 

Steer  24, 

per  cent 

Steer  28, 

per  cent 

Steer  30, 

per  cent 

Digestion  Trial  1. 

1 

Dry  matter 

88.71 

87.97 

88.46 

87.30 

21.41 

23.16 

23.14 

24.69 

Composition  of  Dry 

matter: 

Ash  

8.86 

7.75 

8.18 

8.04 

10.44 

8.56 

9.76 

10.39 

Protein  

14.09 

12.93 

13.80 

12.55 

16.93 

16.71 

18.77 

17.39 

Non-protein  

2.50 

2.33 

2.27 

2.43 

Crude  fiber  

27.60 

27.14 

26.98 

23.59 

34.69 

32.66 

30.44 

32.15 

Ether  extract  . . . 

1.52 

1.68 

1.73 

1.71 

3.05 

3.15 

3.51 

3.19 

Nitrogen- free  ex- 

tract  

45.43 

48.17 

47.04 

51.68 

34.89 

38.92 

37.52 

36.88 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00  | 

100.00 

100.00 

Total  nitrogen  . . 

2.786 

2.564 

2.691 

2.526 

2.709 

2.673 

3.003 

2.783 

Protein  nitrogen. 

2.254 

2.069 

2.208 

2.008 

Non-protein  nit- 

rogen   

i 

| .532 

.495 

.483 

.518 

Digestion  Trial  1 1.  | 

Dry  matter  

| 90.54 

90.48 , 

90.41 

22.19 

20.84 

23.82 

22.18 

Composition  of  Dry 

matter: 

Ash  

7.93 

7.33 

6.66 

8.82 

9.98 

10.28 

9.05 

Protein  

12.99 

12.79 

12.03 

18.13 

19.19. 

16.79 

19.64 

Non-protein  . . . . i 

2.79 

2.52 

2.38 

Crude  fiber  

28.14 

24.01 

23.09 

27.95 

27.41 

31.99 

25.46 

Ether  extract 

1.71 

1.98 

1.89 

3.08 

3.38 

3.10 

3.48 

Nitrogen-free  ex- 

tract   

| 46.44 

51.37 

53.95 

42.02 

4u.04 

37.84 

42.37 

100.00 

Too.  00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

Total  nitrogen  . . 

2.673 

2.584 

2.431 

2.902 

3.071 

2.687 

3.142 

Protein  nitrogen. 

2.079 

2.047 

1.925 

Non-protein  nit- 

rogen   

.594 

1 

.537 

.506 

Digestion  Trial  III. 

Dry  matter  

91.91 

90.17 

92.73 

91.19 

21.17 

15.54 

21.40 

23.52 

Composition  of  Dry 

matter: 

Ash  

8.27 

5.33 

11.82 

5.93 

9.01 

11.43 

9.42 

9.00 

Protein  

13.44 

12.57 

13.96 

11.41 

18.10 

19.03 

18.28 

19.29 

Non-protein  

2.63 

1.85 

2.28 

2.23 

Crude  fiber  

23.57 

19.00 

18.99 

25.91 

26.41 

28.76 

31.35 

27.21 

Ether  extract  . . . 

1.91 

2.31 

1.87 

1.72 

3.44 

3.49 

3.22 

3.63 

Nitrogen-free  ex- 

tract   

50.18 

58.94 

51.08 

52.80 

43.04 

37.29 

37.73 

40.87 

1100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

Total  nitrogen  . . 

1 2.710 

2.405 

2.718 

2.300 

2.896 

3.044 

2.925 

3.087 

Protein  nitrogen..1 

1 2.150] 

2.011| 

2.233| 

1.826 

1 1 

Non-protein  nit- 

1 

I 

rogen  

.560 

.394 

| .485 

.474 

1 

RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


103 


TABLE  42.— COMPOSITION  OF  FEED  RESIDUES  AND  FECES,  1915. 
Percentages  of  dry  matter  and  nutrients  In  dry  matter. 


Feed  residues 

Feces 

Steer  31, 
per  cent 

Steer  33, 
per  cent 

Steer  36, 

per  cent 

' Steer  38, 

per  cent 

Steer  31, 

per  cent 

Steer  33, 

per  cent 

Steer  36. 

per  cent 

Steer  38, 

per  cent 

Digestion  Trial  1. 

Dry  matter  

23.54 

19.93 

20.82 

19.55 

Composition  of 

dry 

matter: 

Ash  

9.56 

9.99 

9.68 

9.56 

Protein  

12.75 

13.29 

13.87 

12.79 

Non- protein  . 

Crude  fiber  . . 

41.43 

42.58 

42.51 

46.29 

Ether  extract 

2.28 

2.35 

2.21 

2.36 

Nitrogen-free 

ex- 

tract  

33.98 

31.79 

31.73 

29.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

Total  nitrogen 

2.040 

2.127 

2.219 

2.046 

Protein  nitrogen  . 

Non-protein 

ni- 

trogen  

Digestion  T rial  1 1. 

Dry  matter  

87.68 

90.28 

21.01 

18.95 

21.71 

20.80 

Composition  of 

dry 

matter: 

Ash  . . ; 

4.68 

5.40 

8.12 

8.81 

8.30 

8.95 

Protein  

12.48 

11.16 

12.49 

14.24 

14.91 

15.54 

Non- protein 

1.13 

1.25 

Crude  fiber  . 

21.14 

22.49 

43.00 

37.59 

37.34 

33.86 

Ether  extract 

2.20 

1.85 

1.94 

2.15 

2.23 

2.57 

Nitrogen -free 

ex- 

tract  

58.37 

67.85 

34.45 

37.21 

37.22 

39.08 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

Total  nitrogen  . . 

2.238 

2.051 

1.999 

2.279 

2.386 

2.486 

Protein  nitrogen 

1.997 

1.786 

Non-protein 

ni- 

trogen  

.241 

.265 

104 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  43.— WEIGHTS  OF  EXCRETA,  1913. 


Steer  22 

Steer  24 

Steer  28 

Steer  30 

Date 

<3 1 

be- 

Urine, 

grams 

Feces, 

grams 

Urine, 

grams 

Feces, 

grams 

Urine, 

• grams 

Feces, 

grams 

Urine, 

grams 

Digestion  Trial  1. 

January  21  

10,180 

5,805 

9,640 

4,585 

3,960 

2,025 

4,790 

3,565 

January  22  

10,100 

5,130 

4,400 

2,500 

4,135 

2,160 

5,100 

2,965 

January  23  

11,785 

6,525 

6,890 

5,265 

4,530 

2,415 

4,300 

3,210 

January  24  

11,775 

9,870 

3,970 

2,070 

3,375 

2,865 

6,825 

3,620 

January  25  

12,710 

7,670 

6,635 

7,475 

4,590 

2,830 

4,505 

3,365 

January  26  

13,545 

12,800 

4,115 

2,570 

5,130 

2,475 

5,520 

3,540 

January  27  

11,280 

14,770 

3,980 

2,885 

4,390 

3,010 

6,360 

3,250 

January  28  

10,185 

12,095 

4,550 

4,380 

4,845 

2,825 

6,775 

3,615 

January  29  

11,895 

14,545 

3,690 

3,345 

5,620 

3,460 

6,455 

4,130 

January  30  

10,500 

13,200 

7,265 

3,920 

6,515 

4,075 

6,925 

4,185 

Total  

1 

|113,955 

102,410  ] 

; i 

j55, 135|38, 995|47,090|28, 140 

1 1 1 

57,555 

35,445 

1 

Digestion  Trial  II. 

March  12  | 

1 

10,155 

8,060 

| 

6,330 

1 

2,605 

I 

5, 780| 

3,715 

5,190 

2,440 

March  13  . . . . 

10.630 

7,000 

6,445 

2,865 

8, 645| 

3,620 

4,515 

2,170 

March  14  

12,325 

10,315 

6,400 

3,460 

5, 705| 

3,365 

5,125 

2,860 

March  15  

14,720 

11,135 

7,050 

3,595 

7, 050| 

3,635 

4,670 

2,810 

March  16  

12,375 

10,195 

5,835 

3,745 

5,995| 

4,325 

5,585 

2,615 

March  17  

13,485 

8,010 

6,660 

3,695 

6,245] 

3,610 

5,950 

2,685 

March  18  

1 11,305 

8,650 

6,695 

3,485 

6,270| 

3,715 

7,340 

2,465 

March  19  j 

13,005 

13,785 

6,120 

| 3,650 

5, 695| 

3,625 

5,855 

3,025 

March  20  

| 11,955 

9,075 

9,3351  3,475 

6, 440| 

3,950 

7,095 

3,785 

March  21  

| 10,855| 

| 9,805 

9,950|  4,405 

7,350| 

3,335 

| 5,875 

3,540 

Total  | 

120,810| 

96,030  | 

1 

70,820^4,980! 

_L  J 

65,175136,895 

1 

57,200 

28,395 

1 

Digestion  Trial  III. 

April  16  

! 

6, 390j 

l 4,410  i 

1 

5,340 

1 s 

! 2,735 

! - I 

7,6101 

3,605 

5,860 

2,755 

April  17  

9,380| 

7,170  ! 

5,380 

| 2,940 

7,370| 

3,830 

5,265 

2,385 

April  18  

10,930 

5,010  i 

! 6,850 

| 4,755 

7, 000| 

4,265 

4,460 

2,365 

April  19  

10,965 

10,210 

8,115 

| 3,140 

8,910| 

4,165 

4,340 

2,370 

April  20  

8,320 

10,250 

7,030 

| 3,265 

7,8001 

4,275 

4,235 

2,720 

April  21  

9,420 

[6,325]* 

14,120 

| 2,525 

6,705| 

4,105 

5,600 

3,130 

Api^il  22  

8,085 

7,450 

6,245 

| 2,560! 

8,560| 

5,070 

3,675 

2,750 

ApUl  23  

13.255 

12,830 

7,350 

1 2,315110,0501 

5,2101 

8,170 

3,415 

April  24  

10,330 

5,780 

4,170 

1 2, 805| 

9,080| 

3.970| 

! 7,005 

3,525 

April  25  

11,720 

7,125 

7,375 

2, 685| 

9, 270| 

3,580! 

8,225 

3,715 

Total  

98,795 

70,235 

71, 975|29, 725|82, 355|42,075| 

III! 

56,835 

29,130 

(*)  A considerable  amount  of  urine  spilled,  on  account  of  a broken 
urine  tube.  No  sample  taken. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


105 


TABLE  44,— WEIGHTS  OF  EXCRETA,  1915. 


Steer  31 

Steer  33 

Steer  36 

Steer  38 

Date 

Feces, 

grams 

a?  2 

C I 

5 & 

Feces, 

grams 

Urine, 

grams 

Feces, 

grams 

Urine. 

grams 

Feces, 

grams 

Urine, 

grams 

Digestion  Trial  1. 

March  16  ... 

.10,935 

[5,3453 1 

14,790 

[5,630]* 

9,665 

[5,175] t 

11,950 

[5,070] * 

March  17  ... 

11,995 

6,020 

16,270 

[6,110]* 

10,350 

5,000 

9,240 

5,650 

March  18  ... 

11,070 

4,815 

15,770 

[6,370]* 

9,460 

5,100 

12,015 

6,570 

March  19  ... 

11,720 

6,675 

15,030 

7,135 

10,815 

6,770 

11,090 

[5,655]* 

March  20  ... 

13,635 

6,780 

18,240 

7,380 

11,100 

6,130 

5,285 

13,685 

9,255 

March  21  ... 

10,265 

[4,270] * 

11,510 

6,970 

15,160 

7,670 

5,915 

March  22  ... 

12,315 

6,665 

17,530 

6,435 

11,180 

5,640 

12,600 

[6,215]* 

March  23 

9,745 

5,745 

13,250 

6,610 

9,095 

5,795 

10,970 

7,005 

March  24  ... 

10,335 

5,470 

17,220 

7,990 

8,350 

7,985 

11,705 

7,1^5 

March  25  ... 

13,205| 

7,885  | 

15,780 

8,550 

11,885 

5,575 

11,515 

7,035 

Total  

1 

!115,220|50,055  | 

1 ! 

155,390 

51,070 

107,060 

53,280 

112,440 

48,55 > 

Digestion  Trial  II.! 

May  5 ! 

8, 235| 

5,240 

17,070 

7,720 

14,505 

8,525 

15,320 

5,730 

May  6 1 

11,840| 

4,815 

19,550 

[5,950]* 

14,280 

5,780 

12,555 

7,825 

May  7 1 

9,360! 

4,855 

19,360 

[4,220]* 

14,630 

6,370 

15,295 

6,975 

May  8 | 

| 7, 135| 

4,060 

16,480 

[5,910]* 

14,415 

6,535 

12,850 

6,370 

May  9 ! 

9,2801 

7,095 

20,090 

9,110 

13,110 

7,370 

12,425 

b,445 

May  10  | 

5,545 

3,700 

15,760 

6,240 

14,915 

7,165 

15,820 

8,040 

May  11  1 

8,3301 

3,835 

18,810 

6,950 

14,640 

7,670 

14,915 

9,505 

May  12  | 

6,7851 

4,360 

21,930 

6,980 

12,565 

7,425 

11,210 

[5,360]* 

May  13  ! 

8,880|[3,7951* 

13,490 

7,020 

14,990 

7,240 

13,505 

9,945 

May  14  j 

8,6351 

6,495 

15,705 

6,905 

15,340 

7,690 

14,720 

7,670 

Total  I 

1 

84,025144,455  I 
1 1 

178,245150,925 

1 

143,390 

71,770 

138,615 

68,505 

(*)  Considerable  amounts  of  urine  spilled.  No  samples  taken, 
(t)  Through  a misunderstanding,  no  samples  were  taken. 


106 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  45.— NITROGEN  IN  URINES. 


Experiment,  1913 

Experiment,  1915 

Steer  22, 

per  cent 

Steer  24, 

per  cent 

Steer  28, 

per  cent 

Steer  30, 

per  cent 

Steer  31, 

per  cent 

Steer  33, 

per  cent 

Steer  36, 

per  cent 

Steer  38, 

per  cent 

Digestion  Trial  I 

.942 

1.512|  1.481 

1.329 

1.327 

1.471 

1.316 

1.150 

Digestion  Trial  II 

Digestion  Trial  III | 

1.111 

1.176 

1.652]  1.524 
2.038|  1.476] 

1.383 

1.516 

1.491 

1 , 

1.504 

1.373 

1.453 

TABLE  46.— WATER  DRUNK  DURING  DIGESTION  TRIALS,  1913. 


jj 

Steer  22, 
kilos 

Steer  24, 
kilos 

Steer  28, 
kilos' 

o' 

I O- 
wS 

Digestion  Trial  I. 

January  20 

25.68 

15.70 

3.69 

8.33 

January  21 

7.82 

7.35 

8.35 

4.58 

January  22 

20.89 

9.52 

5.50 

10.47 

January  23  

26.57 

5.02 

8.64 

11.55 

January  24  

21.81 

11.55 

8.57 

9.04 

January  25  

22.60 

3.90 

4.95 

8.54 

January  26 

22.62 

9.55 

5.70 

9.88 

January  27  

30.65 

2.20 

9.80 

14.06 

January  28  

28.09 

5.91 

10.05 

7.94 

January  29 

25.69 

8.33 

14.02 

13.74 

January  30  

28.90 

10.32 

7.16 

10.00 

Digestion  Trial  II. 

March  11  

14.31 

5.36 

12.32 

8.21 

March  12 

27.30 

14.51 

8.44 

7.19 

March  13  

15.57 

6.44 

3.05 

9.12 

March  14  

22.32 

12.62 

7.87 

8.73 

March  15 

24.17 

9.20 

10.84 

9.65 

March  16  

23.92 

9.78 

8.81 

9.93 

March  17  

20.71 

8.85 

10.43 

8.51 

March  18  

28.07 

13.06 

8.90 

10.58 

March  19 

26.29 

20.01 

14.73 

14.20 

March  20  

19.39 

4.79 

9.30 

| 10.32 

March  21  

24.64 

12.89 

13.76 

| 7.68 

Digestion  Trial  III. 

April  15  

7.53 

7.17 

9.76 

5.30 

April  16  

27.84 

15.38 

17.00 

10.52 

April  17 

17.72 

16.39 

18.70 

9.95 

April  18  

25.39 

7.99 

17.23 

11.10 

April  19  

22.43 

10.49 

14.87 

10.43 

April  20 

29.67 

21.68 

19.26 

17.51 

April  21  

15.64 

5.13 

15.82 

8.15 

April  22  

17.49 

8.59 

14.52 

9.68 

April  23  

23.03 

7.99 

8.52 

11.87 

April  24  

19.95 

9.43 

10.57 

13.26 

April  25 

19.52 

10.56 

12.74 

11.25 

RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


107 


TABLE  47.— WATER  DRUNK  DURING  DIGESTION 
TRIALS,  1915. 


®g 

Steer  33, 

kilos 

Steer  36, 

kilos 

1 

Steer  38, 

kilos 

Digestion  Trial  I. 

March  15  

17.70 

18.40 

18.78 

18.50 

March  16  

15.06 

24.41 

19.80 

15.35 

March  17  

16.65 

20.87 

18.05 

21.82 

March  18 

31.35 

37.00 

28.85 

27.40 

March  19  

37.18 

49.64 

37.40 

22.21 

March  20 

18.30 

25.86 

28.52 

17.50 

March  21  

29.10 

23.45 

20.70 

28.82 

March  22 

18.20 

29.50 

29.80 

29.02 

March  23  

17.41 

| 33.32 

23.70 

20.13 

March  24  

18.88 

I 21.80 

20.84  | 

23.49 

March  25  

31.43 

| 31.70 

29.62 

35.77 

Digestion  Trial  II. 

1 

May  4 

15.26 

28.20 

| 30.11  | 

1 17.37 

May  5V 

18.22 

32.65 

1 33.21 

| 33.42 

May  6 

20.11 

33.24 

1 30.69 

| 17.67 

May  7 

16.25 

27.90 

1 27.91 

I 26.81 

May  8 

22.79 

35.38  1 

1 29.61  | 

1 28.22 

May  9 

14.00 

33.76 

1 30.45 

1 29.93 

May  10  

19.58 

| 39.70 

I 28.90 

1 29.23 

May  11  

15.19 

i 37.85 

| 30.28 

22.62 

May  12 

22.30 

36.00 

I 33.03 

31.67 

May  13  

10.78 

| 40.16 

i 41.73 

37.79 

May  14  

| 29.70 

| 33.18 

I 47.40 

47.00 

108 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  48.— LIVE  WEIGHTS  OF  STEERS  BY  MONTHS.  1913. 


Steer  21, 

pounds  I 

Steer  22, 

pounds 

Steer  23, 

pounds 

Steer  24, 

pounds 

Steer  25,  1 

pounds 

Steer  26, 

pounds 

Steer  27,  j 

pounds 

Steer  28, 

pounds 

Steer  29, 

pounds 

Steer  30, 

pounds 

January 

1 .. 

723 

708 

784 

725 

736 

487 

565 

558 

498 

418 

January 

2 .. 

720 

702 

774 

730 

724 

473 

555 

556 

500 

425 

January 

3 . 

717 

700 

777 

747 

743 

487 

559 

556 

498 

424 

Average 

720.0 

703.3 

778.3 

734.0 

734.3 

482.3 

559.7 

556.7 

498.7 

422.3 

January 

31  . 

753 

752 

832 

723 

754 

461 

590 

581 

542 

461 

February 

1 . 

746 

754 

804 

735 

766 

453 

567 

585 

523 

440 

February  2 . . 

755 

760 

826 

738 

760 

458 

580 

584 

533 

450 

Average 

751.3 

755.3 

820.7 

732.0 

760.0 

457.3 

579.0 

583.3 

532.7 

450.3 

March  2 

813 

885 

880 

771 

817 

515 

602 

641 

560 

507 

March  3 

827 

887 

877 

762 

817 

509 

605 

651 

554 

505 

March  4 

821 

890 

882 

763 

807 

506 

600 

651 

558 

507 

Average 

820.3 

887.3 

879.7 

765.3 

814.0 

510.0 

602.3 

647.7 

557.3 

506.3 

April  1 

910 

968 

960 

828 

902 

530 

658 

709 

600 

540 

April  2 

904 

965 

958 

830 

904 

526 

653 

705 

598 

538 

April  3 

900 

965 

950 

823 

900 

557 

627 

718 

580 

542 

Average 

904.7 

966.0 

956.0 

827.0 

902.0 

537.7 

646.0 

710.7 

592.7 

540. 0 

May  1 . 

887 

985 

996 

804 

923 

559 

645 

758 

670 

585 

May  2 . 

932 

1007 

1013 

810 

938 

602 

686 

779 

691 

593 

May  3 . . 

895 

1005 

1008 

809 

932 

580 

660 

765 

683 

587 

Average 

904.7 

999.0 

1005.7 

807.7 

931.0 

580.3 

663.7 

767.3 

681.3 

588.3 

RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


109 


TABLE  49.— LIVE  WEIGHTS  OF  STEERS  BY  MONTHS..  1915. 


Steer  31, 
pounds 

Steer  32, 
pounds 

Steer  33, 
pounds 

Steer  34, 

pounds 

Steer  35, 

pounds 

Steer  36, 
pounds 

Steer  37, 
pounds 

Steer  38, 
pounds 

Steer  39, 
pounds 

Steer  40, 
pounds  i 

February  24  ... 

995 

950 

1065 

850 

810 

915 

850 

870 

895 

835 

February  25  ... 

990 

925 

1065 

855 

800 

900 

860 

865 

894 

830 

February  26  ... 

1000 

960 

1060 

855 

810 

920 

860 

880 

895 

835 

Average  

995.0 

945.0 

1063.3 

853.3* 

806.7 

911.7 

856.7 

871.7 

894.7 

833.3 

March  26  

990 

980 

1087 

860 

809 

930 

845 

875 

955 

890 

March  27  

1000 

990 

1086 

873 

808 

935 

850 

873 

960 

900 

March  28  

1012 

980 

1080 

870 

810 

933 

854 

875 

963 

900 

Average  

1000.7 

983.3 

1084.3 

867.7 

809.0 

932.7 

849.7 

874.3 

959.3 

896.7 

April  25  

1095 

1049 

1180 

935 

822 

1015 

875 

960 

1046 

960 

April  26  

1093 

1050 

1175 

937 

823 

1023 

875 

965 

1039 

960 

April  27  

1095 

1056 

1179 

939 

820 

1020 

870 

967 

1040 

965 

Average  

1094.3 

1051.7 

1178.0 

937.0 

821.7 

1019.3 

873.3 

964.0 

1041.7 

961.7 

May  25  

1044 

1073 

1219 

1010 

856 

1061 

897 

1007 

1116 

1050 

May  26  

1055 

1068 

1230 

1003 

867 

1085 

915 

1017 

1107 

1061 

May  27  

1060 

1056 

1233 

1010 

864 

1085 

905 

1018 

1120 

1075 

Average  

1053.0 

1065.7 

1227.3 

1007.7 

862.3 

1077.0 

905.7 

1014,0 

1114.3 

1062.0 

June  24  

1020 

1105 

1253 

1066 

890 

1149 

925 

1066 

1179 

1120 

June  25  

1015 

1098 

1246 

1075 

900 

1155 

920 

1061 

1198 

1123 

June  26  

1036 

1120 

1244 

1072 

900 

1150 

915 

1068 

1195 

1123 

Average  

1023.7 

1107  7 

1247.7 

1071.0 

896.7 

1151.3 

920.0 

1065,0 

1190,7 

1119.8 

•Average  February  23,  25  and  27. 


110 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  51.— RESULTS  OF  SLAUGHTER  TESTS,  PERCENTAGES,  1913. 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGE'S.  Ill 


112 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


spunod 

‘S2  jaa;s 


spunod 
‘IS  J891S 


spunod 

‘82 


spunod 
‘28  J391S 


spunod 
‘18  JaaiS 


spunod 
‘01  J991S 

spunod 

‘62  aoais 


sSSSSSSSZSSSZS  SSSSggfJ  s 

ISlPT 


lllll|s-s 


sliHIsIisssss  ssssssa'  'a 

gasgsss-s“^“sa  sssssssr  a 


]iiippii§  mm 


'fllppplTPiPT 


IfsflsSsflssF 

illiss^^s-as 


aa: 

353$: 


spunod 
‘82  J»*»S 


ISipppI 

JIIPIHWI 


T 


sfssa "s 
ssss-  a 


^zlssss 


spunod 
‘IS  J991S 


lapiw 


sssssss  £ 


spunod 
‘92  J®«1S 


-JSsffssfp|l5| 


m 


f 


TABLE  53.— RESULTS  OF  SLAUGHTER  TESTS,  PERCENTAGES,  1915, 


RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES. 


113 


HOWWlOCDCOOilOOWlNr 

}U3D  J9(I  ^COMCOMN  ‘ci 

‘£2  J831S 


oioa^tcr 


t»0Hl<5rl<XI«)950N0^0 


;uao  aad 
‘*8  J985S 

■JU90  J9d 

‘82  J931S 

luao  aad 

‘88  aaa^s 


OOfflTfNN^XOOr 


L'J  l' 

OCOOO  WH’^Wt'-lOOO^lOO  C 


luao  aad 

‘18  -I991S 


Cl  ^ -tf*  ITS  CO  CO  <31  in  T-l  rf<  00  00  OHffiN£-XH  C3 

a^aoNt'NaKooir^o  oioxHaojN  c\i 
oouiooui^co  ’ c<i  ’csJ  ‘t-JtH  i-h  th  ’ ,h  Cvi  .h  ’ r-i 


}uao  aad 

‘Of-  J991S 


}uao  aad 

‘68 


}uao  aad 

‘88  *iaaiS 


}uao  aad 

*2,8  J993S 


}uao  aad 
‘98  J991S 


ccl:  r.  -f  ci  c.  < 

o io  tj,  us  cc  ‘ c<j  ' , 


OlOOlOtOM 


po  <£i  l'-  CM  <X>  O US 


£ 0>  0>  , S- 

£ tJ  £ <u  Si 

Cj  S- 

'S  o1  c?  2 ” 

3 si 


•sSS 


— M O O ,£ 


ISS^^o^-ofe^tgS;  ,|g* 

£.9“'3'S2-3S§sS§.>dHOi 

Qoipsj  JtUE-iUEHfcW  J JEl 


I ® ® 1 

‘C  ac 


114 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  54— WEIGHTS  OF  FORE  AND  HIND  QUARTERS  AND  OF 
WHOLESALE  CUTS  IN  RIGHT  HALF  CARCASS,  1913  AND  1915. 


Calves 

i 

| 

Yearlings 

. 

Two-year-olds 

Three-year-olds 

1 

i « 

. 

CO 

o' 

<m“ 

CO 

™ 03 

S3  03 

W 03 

« « 

^ m 

50  03 

! s! 

, 'O 

<u  5 

u* 

u ■§ 

<D  S 

si 

<3  S 

. 'O 
<D  g 

i si 

®g 

3 g 

Jg 

®g 

S g 

«g 

1 02  ft 

02  ft 

m ft 

02  ft 

02  ft 

02  ft 

02  ft 

02  ft 

Fore  quarter  

105.97 

91.97 

147.95 

145.49 

168.75 

163.00 

158.75 

180.00 

Hind  quarter  

102.59 

95.54 

146.89 

150.88 

156.75 

159.00 

151.00 

171.50 

Right  half  carcass  . 1 

208.56 

187.51 

298.84 

296.37 

325.50 

322.00 

309.75 

351.50 

Chuck  

50.03 

45.57 

75.46 

■ 70.63 

65.18 

68.28 

60.46 

68.44 

Prime  rib  

26.06 

20.65 

35.80 

38.86 

47.66 

42.09 

38.69 

53.40 

Plate  and  shank  

29.88 

25.75 

36.69 

36.00 

55.94 

53.00 

59.55 

58.31 

Loin  

35.91 

37.19 

58.81 

71.45 

61.93 

65.93 

64.28 

68.58 

Rump  

16.66 

13.06 

19.19 

17.25 

26.00 

23.50 

40.18 

30.25 

Round  and  shank  . . . . | 

42.05 

38.07 

58.39 

54.27  | 

62.31 

62.68 

56.34  I 65.00 

Flank  j 

| 7.97 

7.22 

10.50 

7.91 

| 6.66 

6.88 

5.53 

7.69 

RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGES 


115 


TABLE  55.— PERCENTAGES  OF  FORE  AND  HIND  QUARTERS  AND  OF 
WHOLESALE  CUTS  IN  RIGHT  HALF  CARCASS,  1913  AND  1915. 


Calves 

Yearlings 

Two-year-olds 

Three-year-olds 

05  +-> 

CO  +-> 

O'  -!-> 

CvT  +5 

nC 

<N>  C 

e§  g ■ 

^ c 

CO  C 

eo  C 

Sh  o 

U O 

Sh  o 

Sh  O 

Sh  O 

s-  o 

u o 

u O 

a> 

<v 

<o 

0) 

<D 

<u 

0) 

0)  S-, 

01  Sh 

0)  s- 

0)  u 

0)  Sh 

<D  S- 

03  Sh 

<U  Sh 

M ft 

W ft 

in  ft 

in  ft 

in  a 

U1  ft 

in  ft 

in  ft 

Fore  quarter  

50.81 

49.05 

50.18 

49.09 

51.84 

50.62 

51.25 

51.21 

Hind  quarter  

49.19 

50.95 

49.82 

50.91 

48.16 

49.38 

48.75 

48.79 

Right  half  carcass 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

Chuck  

23.98 

24.30 

25.59* 

23.83 

20.02 

21.20 

19.52 

19.47 

Prime  rib  

12.50 

11.01 

12.14 

13.11 

14.64 

13.07 

12.49 

15.19 

Plate  and  shank  

14.33 

13.74 

12.43 

12.15 

17.19 

16.46 

19.22 

16.59 

Loin  

17.22 

19.84 

19.95 

24.12 

19.03 

£0.48 

20.75 

19.51 

Rump  

7.99 

6.96 

6.50 

5.82 

7.99 

7.30 

9.74 

8.61 

Round  and  shank  

20.16 

20.30 

19.84 

18.31 

19.14 

19.47 

18.19 

18.49 

Flank  

3.82 

3.85 

3.56 

2.67 

2.05 

2.13 

1.79 

2.19 

116 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  FEED  BY 


TABLE  56.— PERCENTAGES  OF  BONE,  LEAN  AND  VISIBLE  FAT  IN 
THE  VARIOUS  CUTS  OF  BEEF,  1913  AND  1915. 


m c,  ! K : 


72  c.  i m a 


In  Total  Cut.  j | j 

Rib. 

Bone  [ 16.13|  16.16  12.641  14.13 

Lean  | 47.42|  62.51f  50.69j  47.61 

Fat  | 36.45|  21.33  36.67|  38.26 

Shoulder. 

Bone  I 12.97 

Lean  | 70.20 

Fat  i 16.83 

Round. 

Bone  3.09, 

Lean  | 83.40 

Fat  j 13.51 


Loin. 


15.33  12.93  9.46 

71.35|  71.69!  77.14 
13.32'  15.38|  13.40 


2.91!  4.12 

84.541  87.74 
12.55*}  8.63 


3.11 

81.99 

14.90 


15.15 

54.03 

30.82 


8.61 

77.37 

14.02 


2.59 

85.97 

11.44 


15.98 

57.85 

26.17 


6.96 

72,60 


17.16 

53.74 

29.10 


10.57 

70.46 

18.97 


3.34  3.58 

91.50  85.86 
5.161  10.56 


16.59 

57.94 

25.47 


8.04 

80.77 

11.19 


2.62 

87.02 

10.36 


Bone  

! 12.861  10.35! 

13.05| 

7.55  j 

13.851 

12.57 

11.97| 

12.38 

Lean  

60.50! 

53.191 

58.04| 

60.28 

61.45|- 

61.89 

Fat  

1 27.43!  30.38! 

26.45! 

39.26! 

28.11| 

27.15 

26.58' 

I 

25.73 

In  Bone-free  Portion. 

Rib. 

Lean  . 

1 . I‘ 

; ! i 

! 

58.02 1 

1 

1 

55.44| 

63.68] 

68.85 

1 

1 

64.871 

69.46 

Fat  ' 

43.46'  25.441 

41.98! 

44.56! 

1 

36.321 

31.15] 

35.13! 

1 

30.54 

Shoulder. 

Lean  

' j 

i 80.661  84.271 

82.34! 

- 1 

85.20! 

84.661 

78.03 

l 1 

1* 

] 78.791 

» 

87.83 

Fat  1 

19.34'  15.73! 

J 1 

17.66! 

1 

14.80! 

l 

15.34' 

1 

21.97| 

1 

21.21! 

1 

12.17 

Round. 

Lean  

I 

) 1 

' 86.061  87.07! 

1 

91.001 

J 

84.621 

1 

88.26' 

! 

94.66 

! 

! 89.051 

89.36 

Fat  

I 13.94!  12.931 
| 1 

9.00| 

1 

15.381 

l 

11.74 

1 

5.34 

1 10.95! 

1 

10.64 

Loin. 

Lean  *. 

! ! 1 

j 68.521  66.11! 

1 

69.58| 

1 

57.53| 

I 

67.37| 

68.95 

j 

69.81! 

70.63 

Fat  i 

31.48!  33.891 

30.421 

42.47' 

32.63! 

31.05 

30.191 

29.37 

RANGE  STEERS  OF  DIFFERENT  AGE’S. 


117 


TABLE  57.— PERCENTAGES  OF  WATER,  PROTEIN  AND  FAT  IN  BONE- 
FREE  CUTS  OF  BEEF,  1913  AND  1915. 


Steer  28, 
per  cent 

Steer  29, 
per  cent 

Steer  22, 
per  cent 

Steer  23, 
per  cent 

Steer  36, 
per  cent 

Steer  40, 
per  cent 

Steer  32, 
per  cent 

Steer  33, 
per  cent 

Rib. 

j 

1 

! 

1 

! 

1 1 

I 

Water  

52.041 

48.09 

| 42.59 

1 46.70| 

48.46 

51.05 

* 

Protein  

1 13.94 

14.75| 

14.19| 

11.81| 

14.38| 

13.61 

12.97 

Fat  

) 38.12 

32.711 

I 37.12 

| 45.34 

| 36.94| 

38.12 

34.08 

Shoulder. 

I 1 

! 

1 

Water  

| 66.68 

68.59| 

66. 661 

67.70 

i 66.64! 

63.69 

65.33 

67.94 

Protein  

1 17.751 

18.00! 

17.94| 

' 17.69! 

| 18.67| 

16.76 

17.29 

18.58 

Fat  

! 15.38 

i 12.831 

13.30 

| 14.03 

13.91| 

18.62 

| 16.37 

12.75 

Round. 

1 

. 1 

.1 

Water  

| 68.94 

| 68.451 

70.20 

I 67.82 

1 * I 

71.01 

69.62 

67.71 

Protein  

| 19.44| 

18.31| 

19.88| 

18.561 

I 

21.75! 

| 19.45 

19.68 

Fat  

| 10.43| 

11.75| 

9.31| 

12.51| 

8. 32 1 

9.49| 

11.33 

Loin. 

1 1 

! | 

1 

Water  

] 56.93 

I 55.721 

58.55 

1 51.75 

56.82| 

57.36 

56.45 

57.21 

Protein  

| 15.38| 

| 15.13! 

15.88: 

i 13.56 

15.55| 

15.86 

16.37 

16.09 

Fat  

! 26.71 

1 1 

1 28.351 
1 

24.21 

! 

i 33.72 

1 

! 27.631 

! L 

26.58 

27.03 

25.69 

Data  lost  through  an  accident. 


\ 


\l3f 

BULLETIN  No.  104 
February,  1917 

New  Mexico  College  of  Agriculture 
and  Mechanic  Arts 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station 
State  College,  N.  M. 

In  Co-operation  with  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture, 
Office  of  Dry  Land  Agriculture 


Harvesting  “Iron”  Cowpeas. 

Tucumcari,  N.  M.,  Field  Station,  1913. 

Dry  Farming  in  Eastern  New  Mexico 

By 

J.  E.  MUNDELL,  Assistant  in  Dry  Land  Agriculture,  U S D A 
Superintendent  of  the  Tucumcari  Field  Station  from’ 
September,  1911,  to  June  30,  1914, 
and 

HERBERT  G SISHTIi,  Assistant  in  Dry  Land  Agriculture,  U.  S. 
D.  A.,  Superintendent  of  the  Tucumcari  Field  Station 
Since  July  1,  1914. 

Rio  Grande  Publishing  Co. 

Las  Cruces,  N.  M. 

1917. 


New  Mexkro  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


BOARD  OF  CONTROL 


Board  of  Regents  of  the  College 

J.  H.  PAXTON,  President,  Las  Cruces,  N.  M. 

P.  F.  McCANNA,  Secretary  and  Treasurer,  Albuquerque,  N.  M. 

C.  W.  GERBER,  Las  Cruces,  N.  M. 

R.  R.  LARKIN,  East  Las  Vegas,  N.  M. 

J.  A.  MAHONEY,  Deming,  N.  M. 


Advisory  Members 

HON.  E.  C.  DE  BACA,  Governor  of  New  Mexico,  Santa  Fe,  N.  M. 
HON.  J.  H.  WAGNER,  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction, 
Santa  Fe,  N.  M. 


STATION  STAFF 


GEORGE  E.  LADD,  Ph.  D.  ___ 
FABIAN  GARCIA,  M.  S.  A.__ 
LUTHER  FOSTER,  M.  S.  A.  _. 

D.  E.  MERRILL,  M.  S. 

L.  A.  HIGLEY,  Ph.  D. 

R.  L.  STEWART,  M.  S.  A. 

D.  W.  A.  BLOODGOOD,  B.  S. 
J.  D.  HUNGERFORD,  B.  S.  __ 

JOSE  QUINTERO,  B.  S. 

J.  R.  MEEKS,  B.  S.  A. 

J.  W.  RIGNEY,  B.  S.  A. 

J.  G.  HAMILTON,  B:  S.  A.  ___ 

E.  J.  MAYNARD,  B.  S.  A. 

A.  B.  FITE,  B.  S.  A.  _________ 

J.  T.  BARLOW,  B.  S.  A. 

F.  C.  WERKENTHIN,  M.  A.  __ 
R.  B.  THOMPSON,  B.  S.  A.  __ 

K.  B.  OGILVIE,  B.  S. 

H.  G.  SMITH*,  B.  S.  A. 

FLOY  E.  FRENCH 

R.  V.  WARE 

C.  P.  WILSON,  M.  S. 


President  of  the  College 

Director  and  Horticulturist 

Animal  Husbandman 

Biologist 

. Chemist 

Agronomist 

Irrigation  Engineer 

Nutrition  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Animal  Husbandman 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  Animal  Husbandman 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  Biologist 

Assistant  Poultryman 

Assistant  in  Irrigation 

Assistant  in  Dry-Land  Agriculture 

Librarian 

Registrar 

Secretary  and  Editor 


♦Superintendent,  of  the  Tucumcari,  N.  M.,  P’ield  Station,  operated  by 
the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  in  cooperation  with  the  New  Mexico 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO 

INTRODUCTION. 

This  bulletin  will  be  one  of  a popular  type  written  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  to  present  and  to  prospective  set- 
tlers information  on  general  crop  conditions  and  methods 
for  farming  the  dry-land  areas  of  eastern  New  Mexico. 
The  information  it  contains  has  been  gathered  from  sev- 
eral years  of  observations  in  eastern  New  Mexico  and  in 
other  dry-farming  districts,  and  from  the  results  of  ex- 
periments carried  on  at  the  Dry  Land  Field  Station  lo- 
cated at  Tucumcari,  New  Mexico.  Although  the  data  con- 
tained herein  and  the  suggestions  made  are  for  the  con- 
ditions found  in  eastern  New  Mexico,  the  underlying  prin- 
ciples pointed  out  may  hold  true  in  other  parts  of  the 
southern  portion  of  the  Great  Plains  Area. 

It  is  hoped  that  the  information  and  data  herein  pre- 
sented may  be  of  considerable  assistance  to  the  farmers 
at  present  in  the  region,  and  especially  to  the  newcomers, 
in  their  dry-farming  operations.  One  of  the  most  im- 
portant points  for  the  latter  to  bear  in  mind  is  that  con- 
ditions in  the  dry-farming  areas  of  New  Mexico  are  very 
different  from  those  of  the  more  humid  sections  of  the 
country,  and  may  require  different  methods.  As  a rule, 
those  who  have  succeeded  best  in  the  past  have  been  the 
ones  who  have  adapted  their  farming  operations  most 
promptly  and  thoroughly  to  conditions  as  they  exist. 

It  is  the  object  of  the  present  bulletin  to  present  data 
secured,  not  so  much  for  the  purpose  of  attracting  more 
settlers  to  this  region,  but  to  give  helpful  information  to 
those  who  are  here  and  those  who  may  settle  in  this  part  of 
the  State  in  the  future.  The  methods  suggested  in  the  fol- 
lowing pages  are  the  practices  of  successful  settlers  and 
are  methods  which  have  thus  far,  from  the  experiments 
carried  on  at  this  Station,  shown  themselves  to  be  the  best. 

DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  DRY  LAND 
FIELD  STATION. 

The  New  Mexico  Dry  Land  Field  Station  is  located 


4 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


about  three  miles  northeast  of  the  city  of  Tucumcari,  New 
Mexico.  The  elevation  of  the  Station  is  about  4,200  feet. 
The  topography  of  the  immediate  section  is  rolling.  The 
Station  farm  contains  320  acres  of  arable  land,  about  100 
acres  of  which  are  in  crops  each  year.  The  soil  is  of  a 
residual  type  and  is  classified  by  the  Bureau  of  Soils  of 
the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  as  a fine 
sand.  The  sand  extends  down  to  a depth  of  from  one 
to  three  feet,  gradually  blending  into  a clay  which  goes 
down,  in  many  places,  to  a depth  of  at  least  135  feet,  as 
noted  during  the  drilling  of  two  wells  on  the  Station 
grounds.  The  soil  is  of  a dark  chocolate  color  and  is  nat- 
urally fertile  enough  for  the  amount  of  precipitation  nor- 
mally received  in  this  section. 


Fig.  1. — Office,  Implement  Shed,  and  Barn. 

Tucumcari,  N.  M.,  Field  Station.  * 

The  New  Mexico  Dry  Land  Field  Station  is  an  out- 
growth of  a demonstration  farm  started  near  Tucumcari 
in  1909.  The  farm  was  financed  by  an  appropriation 
made  by  the  State  legislature.  In  the  fall  of  1911  the 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  took  over  the 
work  of  the  Station  and  placed  it  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Office  of  Dry  Land  Agriculture.  In  the  summer 
of  3912  the  present  site  of  the  Station  was  purchased  by 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


5 


the  citizens  of  Tucumcari  and  deeded  to  the  New  Mexico 
College  of  Agriculture  and  Mechanic  Arts.  The  land 
was  then  leased  to  the  United  States  Department  of  Agri- 
culture and  the  expense  of  all  buildings  and  other  perma- 
nent improvements,  and  of  equipment,  maintenance  and 
operation  of  the  Station  has  been  provided  for  from  Fed- 
eral funds  administered  through  the  Office  of  Dry  Land 
Agriculture,  Bureau  of  Plant  Industry,  United  States 
Department  of  Agriculture.  Although  this  Station  was 
organized  primarily  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  ex- 
periments for  the  above  Office,  in  addition  there  is  co- 
operative experimental  work  carried  an  for  other  divis- 
ions of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  and 
for  the  New  Mexico  State  Experiment  Station.  The  pri- 
mary work  of  the  Station  is  testing  out  various  rotations 
and  tillage  methods  which  may  be  best  adapted  to  this 
section.  The  co-operative  work  consists  of  securing  soil 
moisture  and  climatological  data  in  co-operation  with  the 
Office  of  Biophysical  Investigations ; varietal  tests  and 
dates  and  rates  of  planting  grain  sorghums  for  the  Office 
of  Cereal  Investigations ; varietal  tests  of  sorgos,  millets 
and  cowpeas  for  the  Office  of  Forage  Crop  Investiga- 
tions ; varietal  tests  of  corn  for  the  Office  of  Corn  Investi- 
gations ; varietal  tests  of  cotton  for  the  Office  of  Cotton 
Breeding  Investigations,  and  taking  weather  observations 
for  the  U.  S.  Weather  Bureau.  Co-operative  steer  feed- 
ing and  hog  pasture  experiments  are  being  conducted 
with  the  State  Experiment  Station.  It  is  the  intention  to 
publish,  at  an  early  date,  a bulletin  giving  the  results  se- 
cured in  the  steer  feeding  investigations.  Some  experi- 
mental work  with  fruit  trees  and  ornamental  shrubs  and 
trees  is  also  being  conducted. 

METHOD  OF  EXPERIMENTATION. 

These  crop  experiments  are  conducted  on  plats  either 
one-tenth  or  one-twentieth  acre  in  size.  All  plats  are  33 
feet  wide  and  are  either  66  feet  or  132  feet  long,  depend- 
ing on  the  area.  There  were  146  one-tenth  acre  plats  de- 


6 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


voted  to  the  work  of  the  Office  of  Dry  Land  Agriculture 
and  29  one-tenth  and  88  one-twentieth  acre  plats  devoted 
to  the  work  of  co-operators  during  the  season  of  1916. 
Each  plat  planted  to  row  crops  has  ten  rows  spaced  44 
inches  apart.  The  spacing  of  the  plants  in  the  rows  varies 
with  the  crop  grown  and  the  experiment  being  conducted. 
For  all  drilled  crops  the  rows  are  8 inches  apart. 

A number  of  one-acre  fields  are  used  for  co-operative 
hog  pasture  experiments.  The  remaining  land  is  devoted 
to  raising  crops  for  the  Station  live  stock  and  for  feeding 
tests. 

Since  all  of  these  crop  tests  are  conducted  on  small 
areas  of  land,  the  farming  operations  are  necessarily 
more  expensive  than  is  the  case  with  crops  grown  on 
larger  units,  but  it  is  the  aim  of  the  Station  to  give  no 
more  and  no  better  treatment  to  the  crops  than  a farmer 
could  afford  to  give. 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


7 


8 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


General  Factors  That  Should  Be 
Considered 

Locating  a Farm. 

The  following  suggestions  relative  to  locating  a farm 
may  be  of  some  use  to  new  settlers  as  they  aim  to  pre- 
sent some  of  the  more  salient  points  to  be  considered. 

The  choice  as  to  distance  from  town  depends  largely 
upon  the  type  of  farming  that  is  to  be  practiced.  If  live- 
stock farming  is  to  be  undertaken,  distance  amounts  to 
but  little,  whereas  if  the  crops  are  to  be  marketed  direct 
it  is  essential  that  one  locate  within  easy  reach  of  mar- 
kets. 

In  eastern  New  Mexico  soil  types  vary  greatly — in 
many  instances  two  or  more  distinct  types  of  soils  will 
be  found  quite  close  together.  Most  of  the  farmers  who 
are  doing  well  in  this  section  prefer  a sandy  rather  than 
a clayey  soil,  as  in  the  past  it  has  been  noted  that  better 
and  surer  crops  were  raised  on  sandy  soils  than  on  those 
containing  more  clay.  The  depth  of  the  soil  should  be 
considered  as  well  as  the  type,  for  the  soil  acts  as  a reser- 
voir for  water  and  it  is  evident  that  a deep  soil  will  hold 
much  more  water  than  will  a shallow  one.  Nearly  all  of 
our  sandy  types  of  soils  are  underlain  by  a clay  or  other 
relatively  impervious  subsoil.  In  cases  of  this  kind  it 
will  be  found  best  to  select  soils  the  subsoil  of  which  is 
at  least  two  feet  below  the  surface.  Experience  shows 
that  shallow  soils  are  to  be  avoided.  Before  deciding  on 
a piece  of  land  it  should  be  ascertained  if  the  prospects 
for  securing  water  are  good.  The  well  should  be  the  first 
thing  to  be  considered  and  only  after  water  has  been  se- 
cured should  buildings  be  erected.  Wheneyer  possible, 
buildings  should  be  placed  in  close  proxmity  to  the  water 
supply. 

As  the  section  becomes  more  settled  schools  will  be 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


9 


established  closer  together  than  is  now  practicable,  but 
even  now  it  is  no  great  distance  from  any  farm  to  a good 
school,  and  good  high  schools  are  to  be  found  in  almost 
any  of  the  larger  towns. 

In  regard  to  selecting  a healthful  location,  probably 
the  most  important  things  to  be  considered  in  this  climate 
are  sources  of  uncontaminated  water  and  a reasonably 
high  and  well-drained  place  for  the  residence  and  barns. 

LIMITING  FACTORS  IN  CROP  PRODUCTION. 

Many  of  the  limiting  factors  of  crop  production  found 
in  other  agricultural  communities  are  also  to  be  found  in 
this  section.  Among  the  more  important  ones  may  be 
mentioned  the  following: 

Moisture:  Moisture  is  generally  stated  to  be  the 
principal  limiting  factor  in  crop  production  in  this  sec- 
tion, and  this  being  true,  the  farm  practices  should  be 
outlined  to  conserve  and  utilize  as  much  of  the  available 
moisture  as  possible. 

Sand:  On  the  sandy  areas  of  New  Mexico  much  soil- 
blowing and  soil-washing  occur  unless  special  effort  is 
made  for  their  prevention.  When  a crop  is  young  the 
drifting  or  washing  of  the  soil  will  sometimes  cover  and 
smother  it.  In  the  tillage  operations  on  sandy  lands  it 
is  therefore  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  the  prevention  of 
blowing  and  washing  whenever  possible. 

Pests:  New  Mexico  has  her  share  of  weeds  and  since 
weeds  use  much  moisture  they  should  be  kept  in  check, 
in  order  that  the  available  moisture  can  be  saved  for  the 
crops. 

Rabbits,  prairie  dogs  and  other  rodents  are  some- 
times injurious.  In  favorable  years  rabbits  will  not 
bother  most  field  crops,  but  in  dry  years  some  method  of 
combating  them  is  necessary.  Where  possible  a rabbit 


10 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


drive  is  probably  the  best  method  of  getting  rid  of  jack 
rabbits.  With  the  cottontail  it  will  be  necessary  to  resort 
to  trapping,  shooting  or  poisoning.  Prairie  dogs  and 
other  rodents  should  be  exterminated  by  poisoning,  shoot- 
ing or  other  suitable  methods. 

In  the  dry-farm  districts  there  are  few  insects  which 
are  of  economic  importance.  The  corn-ear  worms,  the 
grain  aphids,  and  the  grasshoppers  are  probably  the  most 
common. 

Migratory  birds,  chiefly  bobolinks  and  blackbirds, 
are  occasionally  bothersome  to  such  crops  as  grain  sor- 
ghums, as  they  often  reduce  the  grain  yields  as  much  as 
50  per  cent  through  their  depredations.  These  birds  mo- 
lest the  crops  from  the  time  the  grain  is  forming  until 
maturity,  and  present  a menace  difficult  to  control. 

Plant  Diseases : The  plant  diseases  of  importance  are 
the  smuts  of  the  small  grains,  of  broomcorn  and  other 
sorghums,  and  of  corn.  Treating  the  seed  of  small  grains 
by  soaking  for  ten  minutes  in  a solution  of  1 pound  of 
formalin  to  40  gallons  of  water  will,  as  a rule,  be  quite 
effective  in  preventing  this  disease.  Corn  smut  cannot 
be  controlled  but  may  be  checked  by  planting  only  on  land 
on  which  no  corn  smut  has  been  allowed  to  mature.  The 
loose  kernel  smut  and  kernel  covered  smut  in  sorghums 
also  may  be  controlled  by  soaking  the  seed  used  for  plant- 
ing in  the  formalin  solution  for  thirty  minutes. 

Tillage:  Too  much  tillage  as  well  as  too  little  tillage 
may  be  injurious  to  crops,  in  addition  to  increasing  the  relative 
cost  of  raising  them.  The  number  of  cultivations  which 
should  be  given  will  depend  largely  upon  the  season,  the 
weediness  of  the  land,  the  previous  crop  and  the  methods 
by  which  it  was  1 andled. 

General  System  of  Farming:  Good  farming  is  as 
necessary  here  as  elsewhere.  4 1 Good  farming,”  says 
Prof.  E.  C.  Chilcott,  of  the  United  States  Department 
of  Agriculture,  4 ‘means  practicing  the  best  methods  of 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


11 


producing  the  largest  crops  at  the  lowest  relative  cost  of 
production  and  leaving  the  soil  in  the  best  condition  for 
the  production  of  subsequent  crops.”  Slovenly  methods 
are  sure  to  fail  in  New  Mexico,  as  well  as  elsewhere. 

Seed:  Last  but  not  least  of  the  more  important  lim- 
iting factors  of  crop  production  is  seed.  Clean,  viable 
and  unbroken  seed,  free  from  disease,  must  be  planted  to 
insure  a good  crop. 

TILLAGE  BEFORE  PLANTING. 

Breaking  Sod  Land:  The  common  practice  for  break- 
ing sod  land  is  to  use  a small  turning  plow  and  plow  from  3 
to  4 inches  deep.  When  the  first  plowing  is  done  in  the  pre- 
vious summer  or  fall,  the  land  can  be  backset  a little  deep- 
er than  first  plowed  some  months  before  planting,  in 
order  that  the  ground  may  be  weathered  and  worked 
down  to  a good  seed  bed.  On  sandy  land  or  land  poorly 
sodded,  a disk  plow  will  be  found  most  satisfactory,  espec- 
ially when  the  ground  is  dry,  but  where  the  sod  is  dense 
as  in  short-grass  land,  a better  job  will  be  done  with  a 
flat  breaker  of  either  mouldboard  or  rod  type.  The  lat- 
ter is  the  more  common  type  in  this  section.  Sometimes 
it  is  the  practice  to  list  sod  land.  This  practice  is  to  be 
condemned,  however,  as  a very  poor  seed  bed  is  procured 
by  this  method  unless  the  land  be  extremely  sandy. 

If  the  land  be  broken  and  backset  some  months  before 
planting  season,  it  will  be  found  a good  practice  to  allow 
the  soil  to  lie  rough  until  within  six  or  eight  weeks  of 
planting  time,  in  order  to  prevent  run-off  from  rains,  to 
hold  the  snow  and  to  expose  as  much  surface  of  the  soil 
as  possible  to  the  weathering  agencies.  From  six  to  eight 
weeks  before  planting  season  the  ground  should  be  double 
disked  with  a weighted  disk  harrow  having  the  disks  set 
fairly  straight  to  cut  and  fine  the  sod.  Then  two  to  three 
weeks  before  planting  this  operation  should  be  repeated. 
Unless  weeds  come  up  thickly,  the  ground  will  be  in  good 
shape  for  planting.  If  weeds  appear  they  should  be  erad- 


12 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


icated  before  planting  is  done,  as  it  is  much  easier  and 
cheaper  to  clean  land  of  weeds  before  than  after  a crop 
is  planted. 

Breaking  Old  Land:  If  time  permits,  it  will  be  found 
to  be  a good  plan  to  disk  as  soon  after  harvest  as  possible 
land  that  is  to  be  plowed  or  listed.  It  will  then  work 
much  easier  and  a better  job  can  be  done.  This  disking 
has  the  added  advantage  of  killing  many  of  the  late  weeds 
and  thus  aiding  in  the  preparation  of  a clean  seed  bed  for 
the  following  season. 

Many  authorities  advocate  plowing  or  listing  at  some 
definite  time  of  the  year,  but  it  has  been  the  observation 
of  the  writers,  both  at  the  Field  Station  and  on  private 
farms,  that  the  date  of  plowing  is  not  of  so  much  import- 
ance as  the  doing  of  a good  job  when  it  is  done.  Our 
suggestions  would  be  to  plow  old  land  for  spring  and 
summer  crops  during  late  fall,  winter  or  early  spring, 
and  for  the  small  winter  grains  as  soon  after  harvest  as 
possible.  Early  plowing  should  be  clone  about  8 inches 
deep,  whereas  later  plowing  may  be  shallower.  Listing 
should  be  done  much  deeper  than  is  the  general  custom 
— 6 to  8 inches  having  been  found  to  be  a very  satisfac- 
tory depth. 

Some  writers  recommend  the  summer  fallow,  but 
neither  at  Tucumcari  nor  at  any  other  of  the  twenty-three 
stations  in  the  Grreat  Plains  Area  operated  by  the  Office 
of  Dry  Land  Agriculture  has  this  practice  been  found  the 
most  profitable.  Summer  fallowing  land  is  not  practiced 
to  any  extent  in  eastern  New  Mexico  and  is  not  to  be  gen- 
erally recommended.  It  may  be  said  that  alternate  crop- 
ping, i.  e.,  summer  fallowing  land  every  other  year,  would 
not  be  profitable.  It  might  sometimes  be  advisable,  how- 
ever, to  fallow  land  one  year  out  of  four  or  five,  but  no 
satisfactory  records  are  available  which  show  even  this 
frequency  of  fallowing  to  be  profitable. 

Seed  Bed  Preparation:  For  sandy  land,  if  the  ground 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


13 


has  been  plowed  from  four  to  six  months  before  planting 
season,  a single  disking  two  or  three  weeks  before  plant- 
ing, with  weights  on  the  disk  harrow,  will  in  most  cases 
and  in  most  years  be  found  sufficient  to  put  old  ground 
in  good  shape  for  planting.  If  weeds  are  likely  to  be 
bothersome  it  may  sometimes  be  advisable  to  set  the  disks 
wide,  weight  the  implement  and  then  double-disk  the  land 
before  planting.  If  the  ground  has  been  listed  instead  of 
plowed,  leveling  with  the  lister  cultivator  will  fit  it  for 
planting,  or  row  crops  may  be  planted  without  other  pre- 
paration by  splitting  the  ridges  with  a lister.  This  will 
not  only  place  the  seed  in  moist  soil  but  will  cover  nearly 
all  weeds. 

One  of  the  principal  things  to  guard  against  on  a 
sandy  soil  is  getting  the  surface  too  fine  and  smooth.  For 
this  reason  a smoothing  harrow  is  not  recommended,  for 
unless  great  care  is  taken  in  both  the  time  and  the  method 
of  using  the  harrow,  the  surface  of  sandy  soils  will  be 
fined  so  that  it  will  blow  readily. 

On  heavier  soils  much  the#same  methods  should  be 
pursued,  but  ordinarily  the  spring  work  should  be  started 
two  to  three  weeks  earlier  than  on  the  sandy  types  of  soil, 
and  possibly  one  or  more  diskings  in  addition  to  that  ad- 
vised for  the  sandy  types  should  be  given.  A spike-tooth 
or  other  smoothing  harrow  will  sometimes  be  found  to 
be  useful  on  the  heavier  soils  even  though  their  use  is 
not  generally  advisable  on  the  lighter  soils. 

PLANTING. 

Time  for  Planting , Early  vs.  Late:  Early  planting 
— from  September  30  to  November  1 — is  recommended 
for  fall  and  winter  grains,  as  the  plants  will  then  make 
sufficient  growth  to  guard  against  winter  freezing  and 
soil-blowing.  Early  planting  will  also  be  found  advisable 
in  the  fight  against  plant  lice  or  “ green  bugs,”  which  are 
sometimes  injurious  to  small  grains  during  mild  winters. 


14  DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 

F or  spring  grain  crops,  early  planting — about  March 
1 — is  recommended.  For  summer  crops,  such  as  milo, 
kafir,  sorghum,  cowpeas,  broomcorn,  corn  and  Mexican 
beans,  late  planting  is  to  be  recommended  almost  without 
exception.  The  15th  day  of  May  should  be  about  the 
average  date  for  planting  at  places  with  the  same  eleva- 
tion as  Tucumcari.  By  this  date  danger  of  frost  will  be 
over,  many  of  the  early  weeds  may  have  been  eradicated, 
and  the  condition  of  the  soil  will  usually  be  found  to  be 
good  for  germinating  seeds.  Late  planted  crops  will  not 
make  growth  enough  before  the  usual  summer  rains  to 
exhaust  the  water  stored,  in  the  soil. 

Listing:  On  sandy  areas  in  this  section  listing  is 
one  of  the  best  methods  of  preparing  land  and  for  plant- 
ing crops.  By  listing,  more  land  can  be  handled  in  a given 
length  of  time  and  it  can  be  handled  at  less  expense  per 
acre  than  by  practically  any  other  method.  Listing  is  the 
surest  preventive  of  soil-blowing  and  soil-washing.  The 
greater  percentage  of  successful  farmers  in  this  section 
use  a lister  for  both  preparation  of  the  land  and  for  plant- 
ing. Single  listing  in  the  fall,  winter  or  early  spring  and 
splitting  the  ridges  at  planting  time  has  been  found  to  be 
both  cheap  and  profitabTe.  By  planting  with  a lister  the 
seed  can  be  placed  in  moist  earth,  which  is  essential  in 
securing  a stand.  The  lister  furrow  also  affords  some 
protection  to  young  plants. 

Flat  Planting : If  the  ground  is  broken  with  a plow 
and  later  worked  down  and  planted  “flat,”  it  is  recom- 
mended that  disk  furrow  openers  be  obtained  and  used 
on  the  planter.  By  using  these  furrow  openers,  seed  may 
be  placed  in  moist  soil  without  covering  it  too  deeply, 
and  the  roots  will  be  out  of  the  way  of  the  cultivator 
shovels  and  where  they  will  be  less  exposed  to  damage 
by  hot  sun  and  winds.  After  planting,  the  soil  is  left  in 
ridges  and  will  seldom  blow  if  in  the  right  condition.  If 
the  soil  should  blow  it  is  usually  a simple  operation  to 
stop  it  by  running  the  furrow  openers  between  the  rows 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


15 


with  the  same  machine,  throwing  the  planting  mechanism 
out  of  gear.  This  will  leave  the  surface  of  the  land  cor- 
rugated and  only  a very  stiff  wind  will  start  it  blowing. 

Single  or  Two-row  Implements : Wherever  suffici- 
ent horsepower  is  available  two-row  tools  should  be  used 
in  preference  to  single-row  tools,  as  much  more  work  can 
then  be  done  by  one  man.  Dry  farming  should  be  a pro- 
cess of  making  a minimum  amount  of  work  per  man  per 
year  cover  as  large  an  acreage  as  possible  without  ma- 
terial decrease  in  either  quality  or  timeliness  of  the  work. 

Drilling:  Drilling,  of  course,  is  the  only  advisable 
method  of  planting  small  grains  and  millets.  At  Tucum- 
cari  these  crops  are  planted  in  drills  8 inches  apart.  Ot  er 
crops,  such  as  sorghums,  beans  and  corn,  should  generally 
be  planted  in  rows  and  cultivated.  If  the  latter  crops  are 
planted  in  drills  or  broadcasted,  too  many  plants  to  the 
acre  will  result.  In  very  dry  years  they  will  soon  use  up 
the  available  moisture  supply  and  will  perish,  while  if 
planted  thinly  in  rows  they  will  stool  and  sucker  and  pro- 
duce large  crops  in  good  years,  and  will  have  a chance  to 
make  fair  crops  in  dry  years. 

Depth  to  Place  Seed:  .In  dry-farming  sections  as  a 
general  rule  the  seed  may  be  covered  more  deeply  than  in 
more  humid  regions.  The  depth  to  plant  depends  largely 
upon  the  soil  moisture  conditions  and  the  crop  planted. 
Seed  should  always  be  placed  in  moist  soil.  Corn,  cow- 
peas,  peanuts  and  other  large  seeds  may  be  placed  as 
deeply  as  4 to  5 inches,  but  the  optimum  depth  will  be 
about  3 inches.  Medium  sized  seeds,  as  the  sorghums 
and  the  small  grains,  may  be  placed  as  deeply  as  3 to  4 
inches,  but  the  optimum  depth  will  be  about  2 inches.  Mil- 
let, alfalfa  and  other  small  seeds,  and  cotton  should  be 
scarcely  more  than  covered,  and  with  these,  therefore,  it 
is  usually  difficult  to  secure  a stand  unless  they  are  plant- 
ed during  a rainy  period,  as  the  surface  soil  dries  out 
very  rapidly. 


16 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


Rate  to  Plant:  Crops  in  this  section  should  be  plant- 
ed much  thinner  than  in  more  humid  regions.  Most  plant- 
ing is  done  too  thickly.  If  corn  has  one  stalk  every  30 
inches,  grain  sorghums  one  stalk  to  14  inches,  feed  sor- 
ghums and  broomcorn  one  stalk  to  7 inches,  cowpeas  and 
beans  one  plant  to  7 inches,  and  in  all  cases  the  rows  44 
inches  apart,  the  crops  will  be  quite  thick  enough  for  aver- 
age years.  Rye  or  wheat  may  be  planted  at  the  rate  of 
about  three-fourths  bushel  to  the  acre,  oats  about  one  and 
one-half  bushels  per  acre,  and  alfalfa  or  millet  about  12 
pounds  per  acre.  If  alfalfa  is  planted  in  rows  36  inches 
to  42  inches  apart  (and  this  is  the  better  method),  3 to  5 
pounds  of  seed  per  acre  will  be  sufficient. 

TILLAGE  AFTER  PLANTING. 

Purpose  of  Tillage:  The  principal  reasons  for  cul- 
tivation after  planting  or  intertillage  of  a growing  crop 
in  this  section  are  to  destroy  weeds,  to  check  or  prevent 
soil-blowing  or  soil-washing,  to  level  listed  land  and,  by 
maintenance  of  a loose,  open  surface,  to  facilitate  the 
penetration  of  water  and  prevent  run-off. 

Weeds:  Perhaps  the  most  important  reason  for  cul- 
tivating is  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  weeds.  Weeds 
use  as  much  water  per  pound  of  dry  matter  produced  as 
do  .most  crops.  Water  is  one  of  the  most  important  of 
the  limiting  factors  of  plant  growth  and  should  be  con- 
served in  every  possible  way.  All  weeds  should  be  kept 
cultivated  out  of  a crop.  A heavy  growth  of  weeds  and 
good  yields  of  crops  are  not  produced  together.  A sur- 
face cultivation  will  kill  the  ordinary  weeds  as  well  as  a 
deep  cultivation,  and  without  breaking  off  the  roots  of 
the  crop  plants.  Select  shovels  or  sweeps  for  the  culti- 
vator, having  in  mind  both  the  eradication  of  the  weeds 
and  the  breaking  up  of  the  crust  into  a dirt  mulch. 
“Wing”  sweeps  will  do  well  in  any  but  trashy  and  heavy 
or  stony  soils. 

Storing  Moisture:  By  keeping  the  ground  moderate- 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


17 


ly  rough  through  cultivation,  the  soil  is  made  receptive  to 
precipitation  and  run-off  prevented. 

Breaking  Crust:  Often  it  will  be  necessary  to  break 
the  crust  after  rains  so  that  seed  previously  planted  can 
emerge.  Any  tool  that  will  scratch  the  soil  sufficiently  to 
break  the  crust  in  the  row  over  the  seed  will  suffice. 
Sometimes  driving  the  planter  over  the  row  and  allowing 
the  shoe  or  runner  to  drag  lightly  will  do  the  work. 

Leveling  Listed  Land:  Wherever  crops  are  planted 
with  a lister,  it  is  essential  that  the  land  be  leveled  by 
cultivation  before  harvest  time  in  order  to  have  a smooth 
surface  for  the  binder  and  wagons  when  harvesting  and 
hauling  in  the  crop. 

Checking  Soil-Blowing  and  Soil-Washing : Cultiva- 
tion of  the  right  kind  will  check  soil-blowing  if  there  are 
either  clods  or  moist  dirt  below  the  surface  which  can  be 
brought  to  the  surface  by  the  cultivating  implement.  The 
principles  of  checking  soil-blowing  and  soil-washing  are 
quite  simple.  On  land  with  steep  slopes,  the  soil  should 
always  be  worked  across  the  slope.  Where  no  serious 
soil- washing  occurs,  the  soil  should  always  be  worked  as 
nearly  at  right  angles  to  the  direction  of  the  prevailing 
winds  as  is  practicable.  The  surface  of  the  soil  should 
be  left  in  a roughened  or  furrowed  condition  at  all  times. 
A rough  soil  will  not  blow,  except  during  the  severest 
wind  storms,  or  unless  other  “blow-soil”  is  carried  upon 
the  roughened  surface  by  wind  or  other  agency.  If  “blow- 
spots”  are  noticed  in  the  fields,  they  should  at  once  be 
disked  or  cultivated  in  order  to  check  the  area  from 
spreading.  In  cultivating  sandy  land  it  should  be  remem- 
bered that  a dust  mulch  should  always  be  avoided.  List- 
ing is  probably  the  surest  and  safest  method  of  checking 
soil-blowing.  If  the  ground  is  dry  and  deeply  pulverized, 
even  listing  will  often  fail  to  check  or  prevent  the  soil 
from  blowing. 

If  the  soil  surface  is  in  a roughened  condition,  it  is 


18 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


receptive  to  any  normal  precipitation  and  there  will  be 
no  run-off.  If  there  is  no  run-off  there  will  be  no  soil- 
washing. A rain  will  pack  a soil  having  a dust  mulch  so 
that  it  quickly  becomes  non-receptive,  and  in  many  cases 
will  wash  badly.  Sometimes  the  precipitation  in  this  sec- 
tion falls  so  rapidly  that  any  method  used  for  checking 
washing  will  fail  to  prevent  it  entirely,  but  by  practicing 
the  methods  discussed  above  much  damage  from  soil-ero- 
sion will  be  avoided. 

LAYING  BY  CROPS. 

“Laying  by”  crops  is  the  custom  in  nearly  all  agri- 
cultural districts.  Since  one  of  the  principal  reasons  for 
cultivating  crops  is  to  eradicate  weeds  and  since  weeds 
grow  well  in  this  section  up  to  frost,  cultivation  should 
be  given  late  when  practicable  as  well  as  early  in  the  sea- 
son. An  injurious  crust  seldom  forms  late  in  the  season, 
however,  on  any  inter-tilled  field  that  has  been  given  suf- 
ficient cultivation  to  keep  the  weeds  from  growing.  The 
late  cultivation  will  help  retain  the  moisture  for  the  pres- 
ent season’s  crops,  and  if  the  crop  does  not  require  the 
moisture,  it  can  be  stored  or  saved  for  the  crop  of  the  en- 
suing year. 

EQUIPMENT  AND  POWER  NEEDED  BY  A 
DRY  LAND  FARMER, 

A good  team  is  the  basis  of  all  operations  on  a dry  land 
farm.  Without  a good  team,  one’s  chances  of  success  are 
lowered  considerably. 

Below  are  given  lists  of  machinery  or  implements 
needed  at  different  stages  of  the  crop  year,  under  the  dif- 
ferent methods  of  farming.  Wherever  sufficient  power 
is  available,  large  implements  should  always  be  purchased 
and  used.  Two-row  implements  should  oe  given  prefer- 
ence over  single-row  tools.  Gang  plows  should  be  chosen 
in  preference  to  single  plows. 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


19 


For  Plowing:  The  implements  necessary  for  the 
breaking  of  sod  land  have  been  discussed  under  the  head- 
ing, “Breaking  Sod  Land.”  For  breaking  old  land  any 
good  make  of  riding  or  walking  plow  is  good.  On  old 
land  where  listing  is  practiced  any  reliable  make  of  sulky 
lister  having  a tongue  and  a planting  device  will  answer 
for  both  breaking  and  planting. 

For  Tillage  Before  Seeding:  Where  listing  is  prac- 
ticed, no  implement  is  needed  other  than  the  lister,  for 
ordinary  years.  In  cases,  however,  where  the  weeds  se- 
cure such  a start  that  the  lister  does  not  cover  them  when 
splitting  the  ridges  in  planting,  it  may  be  well  to  culti- 
vate the  ridges  by  running  down  the  furrows  with  a ‘ ‘ go- 
devil”  or  sled  cultivator  having  short  knives  attached  to 
each  runner  of  the  implement. 

On  flat  planting  a good  disk  harrow,  and  in  some 
cases  a smoothing  harrow,  will  put  the  soil  in  condition 
for  planting. 

For  Seeding:  Where  listing  is  done,  the  ordinary 
lister  with  planting  attachment  is  all  that  is  needed. 

For  planting  row  crops  on  plowed  land  either  a lister 
or  a two-row  planter  equipped  with  furrow  openers  will 
be  suitable. 

For  millets,  small  grains,  and  in  certain  cases  for  al- 
falfa, any  good  make  of  disk  drill,  having  from  10  to  14 
disks  spaced  8 inches  apart,  will  do  the  work  required. 

For  Tillage  After  Seeding:  For  listed  crops  noth- 
ing is  better  than  an  ordinary  sled  cultivator,  or  as  it  is 
commonly  called,  a “go-devil.”  This  implement  com- 
bines durability,  serviceability  and  cheapness,  and  does 
fairly  good  work  if  properly  handled. 

For  level  planted  crops,  any  good  make  of  riding  or 
walking  cultivator  can  be  used.  As  a rule  it  is  thought 
best  to  equip  the  cultivator  with  four  to  six  of  any  of  the 
several  styles  of  “sweeps”  now  found  in  general  use  in 


20 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


this  section.  The  size  of  sweeps  to  use  depends  on  the 
width  of  the  row.  Sweeps  are  generally  used  in  prefer- 
ence to  shovels  in  eastern  New  Mexico. 

For  tree  cultivation  a disk  harrow  will  be  found  es- 
sential. 

In  addition  to  the  above  it  is  desirable  to  have  a one- 
horse  cultivator  or  some  other  implement  to  use  between 
and  around  the  rows  of  trees. 

Implements  for  Harvesting : For  small  grains,  a 
binder,  or  a header  and  barges. 

For  millets,  alfalfa,  and  Sudan  grass,  a mowing  ma- 
chine and  horse  rake,  or  in  some  cases  a grain  binder. 
A row  binder  will  do  good  work  with  Sudan  Grass  where 
planted  in  rows  and  where  it  makes  sufficient  growth. 

For  standing  row  crops,  a row  binder  or  a sled  har- 
vester. 

For  cowpeas,  beans,  or  peas,  a regular  bean  harves- 
ter is  needed.  A serviceable  sled  cutter  can  be  made  at 
home. 

For  harvesting  small  areas  of  potatoes,  peanuts,  or 
other  root  crops,  an  ordinary  walking  plow  will  prove 
satisfactory.  For  large  areas  it  will  pay  to  have  a potato 
digger  which  will  do  good  work  for  all  crops  of  this  na- 
ture. 


CROPS. 

Whenever  possible  and  practicable,  row  crops  should 
be  grown  in  preference  to  drilled  crops,  as  has  been 
stated.  One  principle  of  dry  farming  is  to  plant  thinly. 

The  following  lists  of  crops  are  necessarily  brief  and 
contain  only  those  crops  which  have  shown  themselves  to 
be  suitable  for  the  purpose  mentioned.  It  should  not  be 
the  aim  of  any  one  to  grow  all  of  the  crops  listed  here. 
It  will  be  better  to  raise  not  more  than  one  or  two  crops 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


21 


for  each  purpose.  One  of  the  most  important  things  to 
be  remembered  is  that  the  market  demands  a standard 
product  grown  in  sufficient  quantities  to  pay  dealers  to 
handle  it.  Many  farmers,  especially  newcomers,  do  not 
know  what  crops  to  plant  and  so  they  try  to  grow  a small 
quantity  of  each  of  several  varieties,  and  when  marketing 
these  they  often  mix  or  offer  them  together  to  buyers, 
with  the  result  that  a low  price  is  received.  It  will  pay 
any  grower  to  limit  his  efforts  in  growing  crops  to  at 
least  two  or  three  of  the  leading  varieties  in  each  class. 

Crops  for  Forage:  FREED  or  WHITE  AMBER 
SORGO.  This  is  perhaps  the  earliest  and  surest  of  all 
forage  sorghums  tested.  It  is  valuable  for  late  planting, 
especially  in  years  when  other  crops  have  failed.  Its  one 
drawback  is  that  it  is  a relatively  light  yielder,  but  this 
is  largely  offset  by  its  sureness. 


Fig.  3. — Freed  or  White  Amber  Sorgo. 
Tucumcari  Field  Station,  1S14. 


BLACK  AMBER  SORGO— RED  AMBER  SORGO. 
These  two  varieties  of  amber  sorgo  are  moderately  early 
and  for  ordinary  planting  should  be  selected  over  the 
Freed,  as  either  of  them  will  outyield  the  Freed,  in  nor- 
mal vears.  There  is  verv  little  choice  between  the  Black 


22 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


and  the  Eed  Amber  Sorgos — if  anything,  the  Red  Sorgo 
will  be  fonnd  to  he  slightly  higher  yielding. 


Fig.  4. — Red  Amber  Sorgo. 

Tucumcari  Field  Station,  1916. 

ORANGE  SORGO.  The  Orange  Sorgos  are  valu- 
able for  forage  but  are  later  than  the  ambers  and  not 
quite  as  sure  of  making  a crop.  They  are  sometimes 
damaged  by  smut  to  a greater  extent  than  the  amber 
sorgos. 

SUDAN  GRASS.  This  is  a promising  hay  crop 
where  bay  is  wanted,  but  for  feeding  on  the  farm  it  has 
no  particular  advantage  over  the  other  sorghums,  and 
it  is  a much,  lighter  yielder.  Sudan  grass  will  generally 
outyield  Millets  and  is  a better  drouth  resister.  It  may 
be  used  successfully  in  summer  as  a grazing  crop  for  hogs 
or  other  stock,  and  will  furnish  a large  amount  of  green, 
succulent  feed  when  used  for  this  purpose. 

COWPEAS.  Cowpeas  are  very  good  forage  plants, 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


23 


having  a feeding  value  but  little  lower  than  that  of  al- 
falfa. They  have  the  advantage  of  leaving  the  ground 
in  excellent  condition  for  the  succeeding  crop.  Crops 
following  cowpeas  nearly  always  yield  higher  than  those 
following  any  other  crop.  Cowpeas  should  be  grown  in 
rows  in  this  section.  If  land  las  a tendency  to  blow  it 
should  be  listed  as  soon  as  possible  after  harvesting  the 
cowpea  crop,  as  otherwise  the  surface  is  left  smooth  and 


fine  and  is  liable  to  blow.  For  hay  the  Whippoorwill 
variety  is  recommended,  but  for  grain  one  of  the  earlier 
varieties  such  as  Early  Buff,  Black-Eyed  or  New  Era 
should  be  selected. 


MILLET.  German  millet  is  the  variety  which  has 
outyielded  other  varieties  at  the  Field  Station  the  past 
several  years,  but  Turkestan  Millet  also  seems  to  be  very 
promising.  Millet  is  a valuable  hay  or  forage  plant,  es- 
pecially for  late  season  planting.  The  honors  are  quite 
evenly  divided  between  it  and  one  of  the  amber  sorgos 


Fig.  5. — “Whippoorwill”  Cowpeas. 
Tucumcari  Field.  Station,  1916. 


24 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


for  late  season  planting  such  as  may  be  done  on  fields 
where  other  crops  have  failed. 

Crops  for  Grain:  On  the  higher  elevations  and  in 
the  more  favorable  districts  of  eastern  New  Mexico  the 
small  grains  and  corn  will  in  some  years  do  well,  but  re- 
sults show  that  the  yields  are  often  light  and  will  not 
always  pay  as  a money  crop.  As  will  be  noted  from  a 
study  of  the  precipitation  records  given  elsewhere  in  this 
bulletin,  the  greater  part  of  the  precipitation  in  normal 
years  is  distributed  over  the  summer  growing  months, 
while  the  winters  are  usually  dry.  This  alone  is  a strong 
argument  in  favor  of  growing  and  placing  dependence 
upon  the  summer  crops  and  “going  light”  on  the  small 
grain  crops. 


Fig.  6. — Dwarf  Yellow  Milo — showing  the  many  heads. 
Tucumcari  Field  Station,  1915. 


Over  the  greater  portion  of  the  eastern  part  of  the 
State  farmers  will  do  well  to  place  their  dependence  upon 
such  grain  crops  as  DWARF  YELLOW  MILO,  DWARF 
BLACK-HULLED  KAFIR,  and  FETERITA.  The 
Dwarf  Milo  has  proven  to  be  the  highest  yielding  grain 
crop,  but  the  roughage  or  forage  from  it  is  very  poor. 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


25 


Fig.  7. — Dwarf  Black-hulled  Kafir. 

Tucumcari  Field  Station,  1915. 

Kafir  roughage  is  very  fair  and  although  the  grain  yields 
are  slightly  below  those  of  Milo,  it  is  a much  easier  crop 
to  harvest  and  many  people  grow  it  instead  of  Milo  for 
these  reasons.  Feterita  is  a promising  grain  crop  but  as 
yet  has  shown  itself  to  be  no  more  valuable  than  either 
Kafir  or  Milo  for  this  purpose. 

Cash  Crops:  Nearly  any  of  the  grain  crops  men- 
tioned under  the  previous  heading  will  do  well  for  cash 
crops,  but  it  should  be  remembered  that  livestock  prob- 
ably bring  higher  cash  returns  than  any  other  farm  pro- 
duct, in  addition  to  leaving  most  of  the  plant  foods  on  the 
farm ; therefore,  grain  crops,  to  bring  the  highest  returns 
under  ordinary  conditions,  should  be  fed  to  livestock. 

Other  suitable  cash  crops  for  our  conditions  are  few  in 
number  and  perhaps  tbe  NEW  MEXICO  PINTO  BEAN 
and  DWARF-STANDARD  (Acme)  BROOMCORN  will 
be  the  best  paying  of  these.  The  bean  is  a fair  yielder  in 
most  years  and  will  generally  be  found  to  be  a profitable 


26 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICQ. 


crop  to  grow.  Broomcorn  is  the  more  drouth  resistant  of 
the  two  and  does  well  even  in  dry  years.  Crops  use  most 
water  at  the  time  of  forming  grain.  Broomcorn  has  the 


Fig.  8. — Dwarf-Standard  (Acme)  Broomcorn. 
Tucumcari  Field  Station,  1914. 


advantage  over  most  other  crops  in  that  it  does  not  have 
to  form  grain  to  be  profitable.  Rothgeb*  says  that  the 
brush  may  be  pulled  at  any  time  from  the  beginning  of 
blooming  until  the  seed  is  in  the  early  dough  stage.  The 
exact  time  depends  very  largely  upon  the  development 
of  the  fibre.  When  the  natural  pea-green  color  extends 
from  the  tip  to  the  base  and  from  the  outside  to  the  cen- 
ter of  the  head,  the  brush  is  ready  for  pulling.  Broom- 
corn is  usually  a sure  crop  and  a profitable  one.  It  does, 
however,  take  more  of  an  outlay  of  time,  labor  and  cash 
to  handle  than  do  most  dry  farm  crops.  The  stover  from 

*Adopted  from  U.  S.  D.  A.  Bulletin  768,  entitled  “Dwarf  Broom 
Corns.” 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


27 


broomcorn  will  make  fair  roughness  or  forage  for  feed. 
If  put  into  the  silo  at  the  time  the  heads  are  pulled,  it  will 
also  make  fairly  good  silage. 

Crops  for  the  Silo : The  kafirs,  in  eastern  New  Mex- 
ico, fill  the  place  held  by  corn  in  the  central  and  eastern 
States.  Silage  made’from  one  of  the  kafirs  will  generally 
be  found  to  equal  or  excel  that  made  from  Indian  corn. 
The  EARLY  BLACK-HULLED  KAFIR  is  very  good 
for  the  purpose.  Other  crops  suitable  for  the  silo  include 
the  AMBER  SORGOS,  FETERITA  and  MILO.  Unless, 
however,  the  sweet  sorghums  are  cut  at  the  right  stage 
of  growth  the  silage  made  from  them  will  be  inferior  in 
quality.  Feterita  and  milo  are  considered  by  most  au- 
thorities to  make  a silage  somewhat  inferior  to  kafir  or 
cane,  and  should  not  be  used  for  ensilage  if  better  crops 
are  available.  Few  trials  of  Sudan  grass  as  a silage  crop 
have  been  made,  as  yet,  but  very  favorable  reports  have 
been  made  by  the  Oklahoma  Experiment  Station  and 
others.  Crops  for  silage  should  usually  be  cut  when  the 
grain  is  in  the  hard  dough  stage. 

Pasture  Crops:  Pasture  crops  which  are  known  to 
do  well  in  this  section  are  decidedly  lacking.  There  is  no 
pasture  crop  for  general  usage  which  is  better  than  our 
native  grasses,  namely,  Grama  and  Buffalo  grass.  These 
grasses  are  very  slow  in  reseeding  themselves  and  the 
seed  is  not  procurable  on  the  market.  For  this  reason 
sod  land  should  never  be  broken  in  this  section  unless  one 
lias  a definite  purpose  in  mind  when  doing  so. 

Crops  which  give  promise  of  doing  well  for  summer 
pasture  for  all  classes  of  livestock  are  RYE,  PEARL 
MILLET,  SUDAN  GRASS  and  COWPEAS.  WINTER 
RYE  and  other  WINTER  GRAINS  will  make  fair  winter 
and  spring  pasture. 

Crops  for  the  First  Year:  The  average  settler  who 
comes  to  this  section  will  need  to  plant  some  crop  the 
first  year  which  will  bring  him  a cash  income.  After  suf- 


28 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


ficient  feed  and  grain  crops  for  his  own  use  have  been 
planted,  cash  crops  may  be  considered.  If  the  ground  is 
plowed  and  handled  as  recommended  in  this  bulletin,  or 
if  some  other  suitable  method  of  handling  it  is  used,  there 
will  be  no  more  difficulty  in  raising  any  of  the  crops 
recommended  for  this  section,  on  sod  ]and  than  on  old 
]and,  provided  that  the  normal  amount  of  precipitation 
is  received  during  the  growing  months. 

Disposal  of  Crops:  In  selecting  crops  to  grow  it  is 
very  important  that  some  consideration  be  given  to  their 
probable  disposal.  If  straight  crop  farming,  that  is,  sell- 
ing the  crops  direct  from  the  farm  without  the  aid  of 
livestock,  is  the  plan,  a different  selection  of  crops  should 
be  planted  than  if  livestock  farming  is  to  be  followed.  In 
the  first  instance  cash  crops  would  be  largely  grown, 
whereas  in  the  second  instance  crops  for  feed,  grain,  silage 
and  pasture  would  be  given  preference. 

Possible  Yields  Under  Dry  Farm  Conditions:  East- 
ern New  Mexico  is  not  a section  of  100  bushels  of  corn  nor 
of  50  bushels  of  wheat  to  the  acre.  An  average  of  from 
10  to  15  bushels  of  corn  and  from  6 to  12  bushels  of  wheat 
may  reasonably  be  expected.  Yields  of  crops  not  par- 
ticularly adapted  to  this  climate  and  altitude  will  be  found 
to  be  in  much  the  same  ratio.  Any  farmer  practicing 
good  farming  should,  under  like  conditions,  be  able  to 
approximate  closely,  if  not  excel,  the  average  yields  of 
the  staple  crops  as  obtained  at  the  Field  Station  and 
shown  in  tables  on  other  pages  of  this  bulletin.  In  east- 
ern New  Mexico  the  farmer  must  be  content  with  rela- 
tively low  average  yields.  This  being  the  case,  a larger 
acreage  must  be  farmed  to  produce  sufficient  crops  for 
the  purpose  desired.  This  is  a region  for  extensive  rather 
than  for  intensive  farming  operations. 

Drouth  Evasive  vs.  Drouth  Resistant  Crops:  Many 
crops,  generally  considered  to  be  -drouth  resistant,  are 
really  only  drouth  evasive.  Crops  such  as  the  sorghums 
are  real  drouth  resisters,  being  able  to  suspend  growth 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


29 


during  protracted  periods  of  dry  weather,  recovering 
and  making  fair  yields  when  rain  comes. 

Crops  such  as  the  millets,  instead  of  being  drouth  re- 
sisters are  rather  drouth  evaders.  They  will  not  stand 
much  dry  weather  during  growth,  but  will  make  yields 
in  relatively  short  periods  of  time  if  weather  conditions 
are  favorable.  They  thus  evade  drouth  by  maturing 
crops  in  short  periods  of  favorable  climatic  conditions. 

Selection  and  Management  of  Crops  in  Relation  to 
Soil  Moisture  and  Soil-Blowing : Many  new  settlers  no- 
tice that  wheat  and  other  small  grains  are  being  success- 
fully grown  on  some  soils  in  some  districts  of  eastern 
New  Mexico,  and  being  unfamiliar  with  the  local  condi- 
tions, they  sometimes  assume  that  the  small  grains  will 
grow  well  in  any  part  of  this  section.  It  has  been  the 
experience  at  the  Field  Station,  and  of  many  farmers, 
that  most  of  the  soils  of  the  lower  elevations  are  too  light 
or  sandy  in  character  for  the  small  grains.  One  of  the 
difficulties  experienced  on  such  soils  is  that  during  the 
windy  months  of  the  year— and  this  is  the  growing  season 
of  the  small  grains — the  soil  will  blow  to  such  an  extent 
that  the  small  plants  are  either  cut  off,  covered  up,  or 
severely  burned  by  the  blowing  sand. 

Nearly  any  of  the  common  row  crops  suitable  for  dry 
land  conditions  may  be  grown  even  on  the  sandiest  soils, 
provided  that  tillage  operations  are  conducted  with  the 
end  in  view  of  keeping  the  surface  of  the  soil  rough  or 
furrowed,  that  is,  resistant  to  the  effects  of  the  wind,  at 
all  times  until  the  crops  are  high  enough  to  protect  them- 
selves. After  such  crops  as  cowpeas  or  beans  have  been 
harvested  the  land  should  be  plowed  or  listed,  as  the  soil 
is  left  in  such  condition  after  these  crops  that  it  will  blow 
very  easily.  On  heavy  soils  these  precautions  will  be  un- 
necessary. 

Soil  Moisture  Not  All  Available  to  Growing  Crops : 
Not  all  of  the  moisture  in  the  soil  is  available  for  use  by 


30 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


crops.  Although  the  roots  of  the  more  important  field 
crops  have  been  found  from  four  to  six  feet  deep,  in  sonpie 
years  of  heavy  rainfall  the  water  will  penetrate  below  the 
reach  of  the  roots  if  surface  run-off  is  prevented,  and 
will  then  be  unavailable  to  the  growing  crops.  At  the 
Field  Station  the  first  four  feet  have  been  found  to  retain 
in  storage  an  average  of  about  13.5  per  cent  of  water. 
Again,  it  has  been  ascertained  that  the  water  content  be- 
low about  6.5  per  cent  is  not  available  to  crops. 

CROP  ROTATION,  PRINCIPLES  AND  PRACTICE. 

Effect  of  Different  Crops  Upon  the  Fertility  of  the 
Soil:  Crops  are  generally  considered  to  be  exhaustive, 
intermediate,  or  restorative  in  character  according  to 
the  effect  they  have  upon  the  fertility  of  the  soil.  In  this 
section  the  effect  that  various  crops  have  upon  the  moist- 
ure of  the  soil  is  probably  of  more  importance  than  their 
effect  upon  fertility.  Such  crops  as  small  grains  are 
generally  considered  to  be  exhaustive  of  fertility  and  to 
draw  heavily  upon  the  moisture  content.  Sorghums  are 
considered  to  be  neutral  or  intermediate  upon  the  fertil- 
ity of  the  soil,  but  they  do  draw  more  heavily  than  some 
other,  crops  upon  the  moisture.  Such  crops  as  cowpeas, 
beans,  peanuts  and  other  legumes  are  restorative  in  char- 
acter as  regards  fertility,  and  they  do  not  seem  to  draw 
as  heavily  on  the  moisture  supply  as  do  most  other  types 
of  crops. 

Benefits  of  a Rotation:  Among  the  more  prominent 
benefits  to  be  derived  from  practicing  a rotation  rather 
than  a “hit  and  miss”  system  of  farming  may  be  men- 
tioned the  following:  A rotation  of  crops  will  aid  in  con- 
trolling plant  diseases,  weeds  and  insect  pests;  it  may 
provide  for  a balanced  removal  of  plant  foods,  and,  in 
some  cases,  it  provides  for  a restoration  of  some  plant 
foods  to  the  soil.  A proper  rotation  of  crops  will  also 
help  to  systematize  farming  operations.  In  planning  a 
rotation  it  should  be  the  aim  to  include  at  least  one  cash 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


31 


crop,  at  least  one  grain  crop,  and  at  least  one  feed  crop. 
It  should  also  be  the  aim  to  have  at  least  one  of  these 
crops  restorative  in  character;  for  instance,  one  legume, 
such  as  cowpeas  or  beans,  should  be  included  in  every  ro- 
tation. Following  are  given  three  three-year  rotations 
which  fill  the  above  requirements : 

First  Suggestion:  First  year,  Dwarf  Kafir;  second 
year,  N.  Mex.  Pinto  Beans ; third  year,  Red  Amber  Sorgo. 

Second  Suggestion:  First  year,  Dwarf  Kafir;  sec- 
ond year,  Whippoorwill  Cowpeas ; third  year,  Acme 
Broomcorn. 

Third  Suggestion:  First  year,  Dwarf  Kafir ; second 
year,  N.  Mex.  Pinto  Beans ; third  year,  German  Millet. 

The  cultivated  land  is  divided  into  three  parts  and 
each  crop  is  grown  on  one-third  of  the  area  each  year. 
Each  crop  is  grown  on  the  same  piece  of  land  only  one  year 
in  three.  If  it  is  thought  desirable,  milo  or  feterita  might 
be  substituted  for  kafir. 


32 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


FINAL  SUGGESTIONS. 


Beautifying  the  Farmstead:  With  the  exception  of 
the  “draws”  and  the  “breaks,”  the  greater  portion  of 
the  eastern  part  of  onr  State  is  almost  treeless ; neverthe- 
less, as  can  be  noted  from  what  some  settlers  have  done, 
it  is  possible  to  set  out  varieties  of  trees  and  shrubs  which 
will  not  only  grow  but  will  do  well  if  properly  cared  for. 
It  has  been  stated  that  “until  trees  and  other  ornamental 


Fig.  9. — Quay  County  Dry  Farm  Homes,  near  Tucumcari,  N.  M.,  With  and 
Without  Trees.  Fall  of  1916. 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


33 


plantings  have  been  made  on  the  new  place,  the  locality 
the  people  come  from  is  still  called  ‘back  home,’  but  as 
soon  as  a good  start  has  been  made  toward  beautifying 
the  farmstead,  a different  aspect  is  soon  developed  and 
the  new  place  is  now  called  ‘home.’  ” Besides  adding  to 
the  attractiveness  of  any  place,  trees  and  shrubs  also 
greatly  enhance  the  value  of  the  farm  and  will  amply 
repay  one  for  all  the  time,  labor  and  other  expense  in- 
volved. 


Ornamental  Trees  and  Shrubs:  There  are  many 
promising  trees  for  this  section,  but  the  trees  mentioned 


Fig.  10. — Black  Locust  Trees  at  Tucumcari  Field  Station,  September,  1916. 
Left-hand  row  transplanted  April,  1915;  right-hand  row  transplanted 
April,  1916.  Never  watered. 


below  do  well  under  drouthy  conditions,  and  the  recom- 
mendations will  be  limited  to  these  until  further  tests  and 
observations  have  been  made.  Varieties  of  cottonwood, 
the  ailanthus  or  Tree  of  Heaven,  the  Russian  mulberry, 
the  black  locust  and  such  native  trees  as  the  hackberry 
and  the  soapberry  are  on  our  list.  The  better  varieties 
of  the  peach  make  as  good  or  better  growth  than  do  other 


34 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


trees,  and  although  they  will  bear  fruit  on  an  average  of 
only  one  year  out  of  four  or  five  they  will  make  attract- 
ive trees  for  shade  and  ornamental  purposes. 

Among  desirable  and  easily  grown  shrubs  and  hedge 
plants  may  be  mentioned  Bois  d’Arc  or  Osage  orange, 
salt  cedar  or  tamarix,  the  Russian  olive  and  the  Califor- 
nia privet. 

Fruit  Trees:  Eastern  New  Mexico  is  not  a natural 
fruit  district,  .in  the  general  sense  of  the  term,  but  it  will 
pay  every  settler  to  set  out  a small  family  orchard  having 
a carefully  selected  assortment  of  fruits.  The  following 
varieties  of  fruit  trees  make  a good  list  and  can  be  recom- 
mended : — 

iYPPLES.  Jonathan,  King  David,  Arkansas  Black, 
Winesap,  Early  Harvest  and  Red  June. 

PEACHES.  Texas  King,  Alexander,  Salway  and 
Elberta. 

PLUMS.  Jefferson,  Yellow  Egg,  French  and  Ger- 
man Prunes,  Wild  Goose  and  Green  Gage. 

CHERRIES.  Montmorency,  Early  Richmond  and 
Compass. 

PEARS.  Bartlett  and  Kieffer. 

QUINCE.  Orange  and  Champion. 

Small  f ruits  will  do  well  in  this  section  but  not  enough 
work  has  been  done  with  them  at  the  Field  Station  or 
elsewhere  in  this  section  for  us  to  make  a recommenda- 
tion of  varieties. 

Preparation  of  Land  for  Trees:  Land  for  trees 
should  be  plowed  at  least  six  months  before  the  probable 
date  of  planting,  but  it  will  be  still  better  if  the  plowing 
has  been  done  as  long  as  ten  months  or  a year  before 
planting.  Better  still  if  the  land  has  been  under  cultiva- 
tion for  a period  of  years. 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


35 


At  the  Field  Station  the  method  used  which  has  given 
the  best  results  has  been  to  plow  the  ground  several 
months  before  planting,  as  advised.  Then  a dead  furrow 
is  plowed  for  the  tree  row,  after  which  a disk  harrow, 
with  the  disks  set  to  cut  wide  and  deep,  is  run  up  and 
down  in  this  dead  furrow  until  a ditch  from  2 to  2%  feet 
deep  at  the  center  and  as  wide  as  the  disk  harrow  has 
been  made.  The  holes  are  then  dug  and  the  trees  planted 
in  the  bottom  of  these  ditches.  This  method  will  do  equal- 
ly well  for  shade  or  orchard  trees.  By  using  this  method 
the  rain  water  is  carried  to  the  trees  and  practically  no 
run-off  occurs.  Orchard  ground  is  plowed  each  year, 
plowing  in  one  direction  one  year  and  at  right  angles  to 
this  direction  the  next.  The  orchard  should  be  plowed  as 
deep  as  possible  without  disturbing  the  root  systems  of 
the  trees.  The  dirt  is  always  thrown  away  from  the  trees 
with  the  plow  and  to  the  trees  with  the  cultivator  or  disk. 
In  plowing,  a back-furrow  is  left  between  the  tree  rows. 
By  plowing  and  cultivating  in  this  manner  a basin  is 
gradually  formed  about  each  tree  and  this  insures  for 
each  tree  most  of  the  moisture  which  falls  within  its  area. 
The  principles  underlying  the  cultivation  of  crops  hold 
equally  true  for  trees. 

Distance  for  Setting  Trees : The  distance  to  plant  or 
set  trees  depends  largely  upon  the  preference  of  the  per- 
son having  the  work  done  and  the  variety  planted.  It 
is  necessary,  however,  to  allow  plenty  of  room  for  each 
tree  in  order  that  sufficient  moisture  may  be  secured 
for  it.  x\gain,  too  great  a distance  should  not  be  allowed 
between  trees,  as  it  not  only  mars  the  sightliness  of  the 
place  but  also  makes  extra  land  to  tend  from  which  there 
is  no  income.  At  the  Field  Station  we  have  found  that 
for  single  rows  of  shade  trees  the  trees  do  very  well  when 
set  at  a distance  of  from  16  to  20  feet  apart  in  the  row. 

For  such  orchard  trees  as  peaches,  cherries,  plums 
and  pears,  about  20  feet  should  be  left  between  the  trees ; 
while  apples  should  be  set  about  25  feet  apart.  In  this 


36 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


section,  where  the  trees  never  make  a very  rank  growth, 
these  distances  will  be  fonnd  sufficient,  in  most  cases. 

Time  for  Setting  Trees : If  the  trees  are  to  be  wa- 
tered they  may  be  transplanted  at  the  most  convenient 
time  of  late  fall,  winter  or  early  spring.  If,  however,  the 
natural  rainfall  of  the  region  is  to  be  depended  upon, 
it  will  nearly  always  be  found  best  to  set  the  trees  out 
even  as  late  as  the  middle  of  April.  At  least  some  rain 
is  almost  always  certain  to  fall  in  April  and  it  will  be 
found  that  the  ground  will  usually  be  in  good  condition 
for  setting  trees  during  this  month. 


Presentation  and  Discussion  of  Crop 
and  Climatic  Data  as  Secured  at 
the  Tucumcari  Field  Station 


The  following  portion  of  this  bulletin  will  be  devoted 
to  a presentation  of  tables  showing  the  results  of  work 
done  at  the  Tucumcari  Field  Station  since  its  establish- 
ment; to  tables  giving  such  climatic  data  as  are  available, 
and  to  a discussion  of  the  tables. 

The  different  lines  of  work  at  the  Tucumcari  Field 
Station  have  been  carried  on  from  three  to  five  years, 
and  the  results  obtained  are  more  or  less  indicative  of 
what  might  be  expected  with  the  same  crops  under  like 
conditions  and  with  the  same  limiting  factors. 

It  might  be  stated  at  this  time  that  the  greater  the 
number  of  years  the  experimental  work  is  carried  on  the 
more  conclusive  and  valuable  the  results. 

CLIMATIC  DATA. 

Eastern  New  Mexico  is  a region  of  fluctuating  an- 
nual and  monthly  rainfall,  variable  temperatures,  high 
evaporation  and  a fairly  high  average  wind  velocity. 
These  factors  are  all  of  great  importance  in  their  effect 
on  crop  production.  Detailed  data  are  presented  in 
Tables  I to  VI  and  are  discussed  in  the  following  pages. 

Precipitation : Table  I shows  that  the  normal  or  aver- 
age annual  precipitation  received  at  Tucumcari  covering  a 
12-year  period  is  16.21  inches.  The  table  also  indicates  that 
there  is  often  a departure  in  the  amount  received  above 
and  below  the  monthly  and  the  yearly  average  or  normal. 
It  is  believed  that  this  precipitation  record,  which  covers 
several  years,  will  prove  of  value  if  properly  considered 
when  planning  or  carrying  on  farming  operations  in  this 
region. 


38 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


Fig.  11. 

PYPPPGP  Y70NPPLY  PPPC/P/PPr/O/Y  P^OP-/6 //YC 
roct/MCP/?/,  prw  /vzx/co. 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


39 


The  bulk  of  precipitation  in  eastern  New  Mexico 
falls  in  the  form  of  local  showers  during  the  spring  and 
summer  months.  Frequently  these  showers  are  light  in 
character  and  cover  only  a small  area  and  consequently 
do  little  good.  Again  they  may  be  very  heavy  and  fall  in 
a correspondingly  short  period,  which  often  causes  a loss 
of  much  moisture  by  run-off.  Considerable  loss  of  moist- 
ure also  occurs  through  evaporation ; this  explains  partly 
why  all  of  the  precipitation  is  not  available  for  the  use 
of  the  crop.  Therefore,  the  best  possible  methods  should 
be  employed  to  conserve  as  much  of  the  moisture  as  pos- 
sible, in  order  that  it  may  be  available  for  crop  growth. 

Figure  11  shows  graphically  the  average  monthly  pre- 
cipitation received  at  Tucumcari  for  the  12-year  period 
from  1905  to  1916,  inclusive.  The  figure  also  shows  that 
the  months  of  April,  July  and  August  have  the  heaviest 
average  rainfall.  Over  70  per  cent,  of  the  annual  pre- 
cipitation falls  between  April  1 and  October  1.  This  in- 
formation is  important,  as  it  shows  that  the  bulk  of  the 
precipitation  comes  during  the  summer  season,  which  is 
the  time  it  is  needed  the  most  by  the  summer  tilled  crops. 
By  referring  to  Table  I an  idea  can  be  secured  of  the 
monthly  and  annual  precipitation  received  for  each  of  the 
years  indicated. 


TABLE  I.— PRECIPITATION  RECORDS,  TUCUMCARI,  NEW  MEXICO. 

(In  Inches.) 


40 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


innuuv  inuiaoj^ 
uiojj  oan^jndea 

+7.86 

— .16 

+1.64 

—4.66 

—3.01 

—6.85 

+2.21 

—1.34 

+ .74 

+ 6.03 

+ 1.92 

—6.32 

16.21,  normal 

renuuv 

24.07 

16.06 

17.75* 

11.65 

13.20 

10.36 

18.42 

14.87 

16.95 

22.24 

18.13 

10.89 

xaquiaidog  o* 
Ifudv  ‘inuosnog 

14.43 

10.71 

14.53 

8.54 

7.79 

9.32 

13.39 

12.09 

11.49 

16.25 

14.65 

8.71 

11.83 

xoquieooQ 

1.00 

1.61 

.80 

Trace 

.20 

.15 

.74 

.13 

2.51 

1.31 

.27 

.32 

IO 

J9qUI3AO>J 

4.00 

1.66 

.75* 

| .98 

1.59 

.22 

.40 

- 

.00 

1.49 

Trace 

Trace 

.29 

IQ 

O) 

aaqo^oo 

<u 

0<M00mOU50>OiH00C-00 

t*  ■ T-i 

E-I 

1.06 

xequia^dog 

Oe000«'3U5  05  U5«0'»2<<M'*<«D 

ci  ' r-i  * oq  r-i  * ' cq 

1.20 

jsnSnv 

1 1.01 

2.92 

3.92 

| 1.78 

1.04 

5.88 

5.01 
| 3.74 

1.71 

| 1.06 
\ 2.28 
| 4.43 

2.90 

iSinr 

c-,H«>iOeot-©r-icq®eooo 

OlM10^Ot-fflHTj<0)H01 
^TfNMNHNM  M M 

2.71 



aunf 

1 2.50 

] .46 

1 3.36 

| .44 

1 2.42 

| .26 

1.13 

| 1.57 

| 2.80 
| 2.81 

l '71 

| .63 

1.59 

AUJ\[ 

io©©T*c-«o<M®t-i'2;®y3 

Cq©eO®^©rHOiU5i-tCqU3U5 

c<i  ,-i  cq  " + rH  io  r-i 

1.49 

Iiady 

©O5iH©00«O00rHiHCq©U3 

Ht-owi'i-woiausouj 

N rl  N H tH  cq  'Jt"  1-i 

1.94 

qoxuH 

2.96 

.05 

.00 

.00 

1.72 

.09 

.17 

.15 

.16 

.50 

.90 

.09 

fr- 

IQ 

XjBnaqaji 

1.15 

| .70 

.00 

.90 

Trace 

.04 

1.70 

2.40 

.51 

.40 

.98 

.00 

£2 

iLrenuuf 

.53 

.70 

.24 

.20 

Trace 

.09 

.13 

.00 

.28 

.30 

.66 
| .70 

Csl 

cc 

YEAR 

1905  

1906  

1907  

1908  

1909  

1910  

1911  

1912  

1913  

1914  

1915  

1916  

1 

Average  

* Incomplete. 

Records  to  and  including  1912  are  from  U.  S.  Weather  Bureau  records;  those  after  1912  are  from  observations 
made  at  the  Field  Station. 

Precipitation  from  October  1 to  June  30  is  9.4  inches,  average  for  the  twelve  years. 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


41 


Temperature:  The  eastern  part  of  the  State  is  a re- 
gion where  considerable  variation  in  daily  temperature 
often  occurs.  This  condition  is  due  to  the  elevation  of 
the  country  and  to  the  dry  atmosphere.  During  the  sum- 
mer the  temperature  often  rises  above  the  100°  mark,  while 
in  the  winter  it  may  drop  below  zero. 

The  high  temperatures  that  often  prevail  for  a period 
of  several  days  during  the  summer  have  a serious  in- 
fluence on  crop  growth  by  causing  rapid  transpiration 
from  the  plants.  This  makes  it  important  that  the  crops 
grown  should  be  limited  to  those  that  are  adapted  to  the 
section.  It  should  be  mentioned  here  that  the  “typical  hot 
winds”  of  the  Corn  Belt  area  of  the  United  States  very 
seldom  occur  in  this  part  of  eastern  New  Mexico.  The  re- 
gion is  also  subject  to  late  spring  frosts.  These  frosts  are 
usually  preceded  by  periods  of  very  warm  days  which 
often  cause  fruit  trees  to  bloom  out  prematurely.  It  is 
due  to  this  fact  that  some  varieties  of  fruit  are  uncertain 
in  bearing  crops  of  fruit  in  this  district.  These  warm 
periods  in  the  spring  often  cause  the  farmers  to  plant 
their  crops  too  early,  with  the  result  that  they  are  often 
killed  by  frost  or  have  to  be  replanted  on  account  of  in- 
jury. 

In  Table  II  are  given  the  mean  temperatures  from  1905 
to  1916,  inclusive,  as  recorded  at  Tucumcari.  The  term 
“mean  temperature,”  when  used  in  stating  temperature 
for  any  one  month  or  year,  indicates  the  average  of  high- 
est and  lowest  daily  temperatures  for  the  particular 
period  considered.  By  consulting  the  table,  comparisons 
may  be  made  of  the  mean  temperatures  for  any  month  or 
year.  The  right-hand  column  gives  the  mean  annual  tem- 
perature, while  the  lower  row  of  figures  gives  the  aver- 
ages of  the  mean  temperatures  for  each  month  and  the 
average  of  the  mean  annual  temperatures  for  all  years  in- 
cluded in  this  table. 


TABLE  II.— MEAN  TEMPERATURES,  TUCUMCARI,  NEW  MEXICO. 


42  DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


« ! 

% 

psnuuy 

kO 

LO 

§ 

CO 

s 

kO 

So 

kO  | 

aaquia^das  o} 
iudy  ‘reuosaas 

- 

o 

o 

t> 

s 

CO 

t- 

05 

CO 

© 

g 

05 

CO 

- 

1—1 

joquioooa 

S 

LO 

CQ 

xt< 

CO 

CO 

xt' 

CO 

t- 

CO 

CO 

CO 

s 

xf 

CO 

CO 

CO 

jaquiOAON 

be 

C 

CO 

xt' 

£? 

Csl 

kO 

kO 

00 

xf 

o 

kO 

05 

05 

CO 

xf 

-HI- 

00 

Xt< 

jaqoioo 

t- 

ko 

t> 

LO 

o 

d 

05 

LG 

o 

CO 

CO 

kO 

o 

CO 

xf 

kO 

00 

kC 

03 

m 

Irt 

•H- 

00 

kO 

jLaquia^das 

s 

p 

s 

- 

p 

kO 

t- 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

© 

05 

CO 

t- 

IsnSny 

00 

t- 

kO 

o 

00 

t> 

t- 

05 

t- 

03 

c- 

05 

l> 

CO 

g 

CO 

t- 

Ainf 

CO 

kO 

05 

00 

<M 

00 

o 

05 

c- 

CO 

CO 

o 

00 

00 

aunj* 

CO 

t- 

C<1 

c- 

00 

p 

05 

g 

t- 

CO 

t- 

t- 

t- 

50 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

oo 

CO 

s 

CO 

co 

5 

kO 

50 

iudy 

kO 

kO 

CO 

kO 

- 

LO 

CO 

05 

kO 

kft 

t- 

kO 

CO 

oc 

kO 

kO 

t- 

kO 

qoauH 

CO 

kO 

- 

00 

kO 

50 

s 

LT 

CO 

kO 

kO 

CO 

t>- 

o 

x^ 

kO 

o 

kO 

itaanaqa^ 

s 

o 

05 

xt< 

3 

o 

1—1 

CO 

CO 

o 

CQ 

50 

S 

Aaanu'ef 

kO 

xf 

xr 

CO 

3 

t- 

xf 

00 

CO 

co 

X* 

S 

CO 

* 

YEAR 

b 

a 

; 

0 

3 

kO  cc 

o a 

> c 

0( 

c 

> 05  C 

> O v 

5 T- 

■ n to 

- kO  CO 

i er.  05 

4 

t> 

5 

J r-l  1- 

< 

• Incomplete. 

$ Eleven -year  average. 

Records  to  and  including  1912  are  from  the  U.  S.  Weather  Bureau  records;  those  after  1912  are  from  observa- 
tions made  at  the  Field  Station. 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


43 


Table  III  gives  the  highest  and  the  lowest  tempera- 
tures recorded  for  each  of  the  years  given  in  the  table. 
The  lowest  temperature  for  the  period  was  11  degrees 
below  zero  in  1905,  while  the  highest  temperature  is  shown 
to  be  105  degrees,  which  was  reached  in  each  of  the  years 
1909,  1910,  1911,  1913  and  1915.  On  account  of  the  dry- 
ness of  the  atmosphere  and  elevation  of  the  country  these 
high  temperatures  are  kept  from  being  very  oppressive. 


TABLE  III.— HIGH  AND  LOW  TEMPERATURES,  TUCUMCARI,  NEW 
MEXICO. 


Year 

Highest  Tempera- 
ture; degrees 

Date 

Lowest  Tempera- 
ture; degrees 

Date 

1905 

101 

July 

12 

—11 

February 

13 

1906 

100 

June 

30 

— 1 

November 

20 

1907 

104 

June 

29 

11 

December 

18 

1908 

103 

June 

21 

10 

January 

16 

1909 

105 

July 

11 

— 3 

December 

18 

1910 

105 

June 

8 

— 3 

February 

17 

1911 

105 

August 

21 

— 8 

1 

January 

3 

1912 

104 

July 

9 

— 3 | 

January 

2 

1913 

105 

July 

13 

- 7 

January 

8 

1914 

99 

June 

26 

4 

February 

6 

1915 

105 

July 

11 

0 

January 

16 

1916 

104 

July 

3 

3 

November 

13 

Records  to  and  including  1912  from  U.  S.  Weather  Bureau  records; 
those  after  1912  were  made  at  the  Field  Station. 


Table  IV  gives  the  date  of  the  last  spring  frost  and 
the  first  fall  frost,  also  the  number  of  days  between  frosts 
for  each  year  included  in  the  table.  The  year  1908  con- 
tained 168  frost-free  days,  while  the  year  1912  had  a frost- 
free  period  of  204  days.  These  two  years  cover  the  ex- 
tremes for  the  longest  and  the  shortest  “frost-free 


44 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


periods”  for  the  years  indicated  in  the  table.  The  aver- 
age length  of  the  frost-free  period  is  188  days.  This  table 


TABLE  IV.— FROST  DATES,  TUCUMCARI,  NEW  MEXICO. 


Year 

Last  Spring 
Frost 

First  Fall 
Frost 

Frost-free 
Period;  days. 

1 

1905 

April 

24 

October  

. .15 

174 

1906 

April 

. 2 

October  

. .22 

203  v 

1907 

April 

.30 

(Lacking) 

* 

1908 

May 

, 6 | 

October  

. .21 

168 

1909 

May 

1 1 

| 

November  . . . 

. .16 

199 

1910 

April 

. 5 

October  

. .21 

199 

1911 

April 

.15 

October  

. .21 

189 

1912 

April 

. 2 

October  

. .23 

204 

1913 

April 

.24 

October  

. .19 

178 

1914 

April 

.18 

October  

. .13 

178 

1915 

May 

, 6 | 

November  . . . 

..10 

188 

1916 

April v 

I 

.14 

| October  

. .19 

188 

Average 

length  of  frost-free 

period,  188+ 

* Incomplete. 

t Average  of  eleven  years. 

Records  tp  and  including  1912  from  U.  S.  Weather  Bureau  records; 
those  after  1912  were  made  at  the  Field  Station. 

shows  that,  while  in  most  years  the  last  frost  comes  dur- 
ing April,  it  lias  been  recorded  as  late  as  May  6.  This 
makes  it  apparent  that  planting  of  crops  before  the 
month  of  May  is  rather  a risky  proposition.  The  first 
frost  recorded  in  the  fall  occurred  on  October  13,  1914. 
The  two  dates  of  May  6 and  October  13  mark  the  minimum 
possible  growing  period  for  the  district,  based  on  the 
frost  records. 

Evaporation:  At  the  Tucumcari  Field  Station  a 
steel  tank  two  feet  deep  and  six  feet  in  diameter  is  kept 
filled  with  water,  within  three  or  four  inches  of  the  top. 
Daily  measurements  from  April  to  September,  inclusive, 
are  made  of  the,  amount  of  evaporation  from  this  free 
water  surface. 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


45 


The  dryness  of  the  air,  the  high  summer  temperature 
and  the  almost  incessant  winds  all  cause  a relatively  high 
monthly  and  seasonal  evaporation  in  the  Tucumcari  dis- 
trict. Table  V gives  the  monthly  evaporation  from  April 
1 to  October  1,  for  the  years  1913  to  1916,  inclusive. 

This  table  also  shows  that  the  evaporation  ranges 
from  49.9  inches  to  58.9  inches,  with  an  average  for  the 
six  months  included  in  each  year  of  record  of  54  inches, 
or  3%  times  the  normal  yearly  rainfall. 


TABLE  V.— EVAPORATION  FROM  FREE  WATER  SURFACE, 
TUCUMCARI,  NEW  MEXICO. 


Year 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

Total 

Inches 

Inches 

| Inches 

Inches 

| Inches 

1 

| Inches 

| Inches 

1913  

7.216 

10.345 

8.716 

11.833 

! 10.138 

| 6.438 

54.686 

1914  

| 7.046 

| 7.286 

9.875 

8.078 

I 8.962 

| 8.673 

49.920 

1915  

| 5.554 

| 9.912 

11.239 

10.023 

j 8.406 

| 7.369 

j 52.503 

1916  

i 6.853 

1 

| 11.317 

12.729 

j 11.506 

8.879 

j 7.617' 

| 58.901 

1 

Average  

| 6.667 

JL 

j|  9.715 

10.640 

j 10.360 

9.096 

| 7.524 

i 

| 54.003 

1 

All  records  taken  at  the  Field  Station. 


Were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  the  evaporation  of  moist- 
ure from  the  soil  is  much  less  than  from  the  free  water 
surface,  growing  of  crops  in  this  region  would  be  an  im- 
possibility. Most  of  the  evaporation  occurs  from  the 
first  few  inches  of  the  soil,  and  while  the  soil  is  still  wet 
after  rains  the  evaporation  is  very  rapid  on  hot  day& 
during  the  summer. 

During  periods  when  evaporation  is  high,  heavy  de- 
mand is  made  upon  the  growing  plants  for  moisture.  In 
order  to  meet  this  requirement  the  crops  planted  should 
be  hardy  and  adapted  to  such  conditions ; therefore,  such 
crops  as  milo,  kafir,  sorghum,  feterita  and  Sudan  grass 


46 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


are  recommended  for  this  section.  These  crops  have  the 
ability  to  suspend  or  stop  growth  for  a short  period  of 
time,  though  they  may  seem  to  burn  badly.  If  rain  is 
not  delayed  for  too  long  a time  the  crops  will  spring  into 
new  growth  after  a few  good  showers,  and  if  not  burned 
too  severely  will  often  produce  fair  yields.  This  is  what 
makes  them  valuable  crops  for  eastern  New  Mexico. 

Wind  Velocity:  The  eastern  part  of  New  Mexico, 
as  well  as  other  parts  of  the  State,  has  considerable  wind 
movement.  This  movement  is  so  great  at  times  that  fre- 
quently sandy  soils  blow  badly  and  in  the  spring  of  the 
year  serious  damage  is  often  done  to  the  young  crops. 
The  plants  may  be  either  cut  off  at  the  surface  of  the 
ground,  covered  badly,  or  blown  completely  out. 

As  has  been  stated,  the  wind  plays  an  important  part 
in  causing  rapid  evaporation  from  the  surface  of  the  soil 
during  the  early  spring  and  summer.  Transpiration  from 
the  leaves  of  the  plants  during  warm  and  windy  periods 
is  no  doubt  very  heavy. 


TABLE  VI.— AVERAGE  HOURLY  WIND  VELOCITY,  TUCUMCARI, 
NEW  MEXICO. 


Year 

April 

May 

.Tune 

July 

August 

September 

Average 

Miles 

Miles 

Miles 

Miles 

Miles 

Miles 

Miles 

1913 

6.7 

7.3 

7.2 

6.6 

5.2 

5.5 

6.4 

1914 

9.3 

7.4 

7.1 

3.2 

3.9 

5.0 

6.0 

1915 

6.3 

7.1 

7.1 

6.1 

4.3 

5.6 

6.1 

1916 

1 

7.6 

7.8 

7.6 

5.5 

5.5 

4.9 

6.5 

Average]  7.5 

1 

7.4 

7.3 

5.4 

4.7 

5.3 

6.3 

All  records  taken  at  the  Field  Station. 


The  months  of  March,  April,  and  May  include  the 
part  of  the  year  having  the  greatest  wind  movement,  al- 
though this  windy  period  may  sometimes  extend  to  the 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


47 


middle  of  June.  Often  the  soil  is  dried  out  so  rapidly 
after  planting  that  a good  germination  and  stand  is  not 
secured,  necessitating  a replanting  of  the  crop.  Table 
VI  gives  the  average  wind  velocity  in  miles  per  hour  for 
each  of  the  months  from  April  1 to  September  30,  in- 
clusive. The  anemometer  or  wind  gauge  used  in  taking 
the  wind  velocity  is  placed  at  a height  of  two  feet  above  the 
ground  in  an  unsheltered  place. 

CROP  DATA. 

In  the  following  tables  presenting  yields  of  crops  un- 
der various  tests  at  the  Tucumcari  Field  Station,  kafirs 
are  given  in  bushels  (60  lbs.)  per  acre;  milo  and  all  other 
grain  sorghums  in  bushels  of  58  pounds  per  acre ; forage 
sorghums,  Sudan  grass,  millet  and  cowpeas  are  given  in 
pounds  of  hay  per  acre;  broomcorn  yields  are  totals  of 
“cleaned  brush”  per  acre  in  pounds;  beans  are  given  in 
pounds  of  beans  per  acre;  cotton  is  given  in  pounds  of 
seed-cotton  per  acre,  and  corn,  potatoes,  wheat,  oats, 
barley  and  rye  are  given  in  bushels  (U.  S.  Standard)  per 
acre. 

Table  VII  is  a presentation  of  the  yields  per  acre  of 
crops  obtained  under  the  various  cultural  methods  in  use 
at  the  Tucumcari  Field  Station.  In  this  table  it  is  shown 
that  the  highest  yields  were  secured  on  the  summer  tilled 
plats  with  all  crops  except  cotton  and  cowpeas.  It  should 
be  remembered,  however,  that  the  increases  in  yields  are 
small  and  not  high  enough  to  pay  for  the  increased  cost 
of  production  under  this  method.  As  has  already  been 
stated,  summer  tillage  or  alternate  cropping  has  not 
proven  to  be  the  most  profitable  with  any  crop  at  the  Dry 
Land  Field  Stations. 

Fall  plowing  has  given  higher  yields  than  spring 
plowing,  subsoiling  or  listing,  except  with  sorghum, 
broomcorn,  corn,  spring  wheat  and  oats.  In  some  cases 
the  difference  is  so  small  as  to  make  it  immaterial,  so  far 


48 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


as  yields  are  concerned,  as  to  whether  spring  or  fall 
plowing  is  used. 

TABLE  VII.— YIEL  DS  OF  CROPS,  IN  POUNDS  OR  BUSHELS  PER  ACRE, 
OBTAINED  UNDER  DIFFERENT  CULTURAL  METHODS  AT  THE 
TUCUMCARI  FIELD  STATION,  FOR  THE  YEARS  1914  TO 
1916,  INCLUSIVE. 


Crop 

Cultural  Method 

Av’ge* 

Fall  Plowed 

Spring  Plowed 

Subsoiled 

T3 

0) 

+J 

CQ 

3 

Disked 

Summer  Tilled 

Manured 

Tillage 

Milo  

40.1 

34.5 

28.2 

23.2 

45.4  t 

43.2 

37.9 

Kafir  

30.8 

29.9 

32.1 

28.9 

39.1 

31.6 

Sorgo  (d) 

5300 

5520 

4887 

4245 

6040 

5108 

Broom  - 

corn  (e) . . . 

534 

588 

550 

568 

628 

573 

Sudan  grass 

| 2360a 

2360a 

Millet  ‘ 

I 2254 

2254 

Cowpeas 

| 3587b 

| 3004c 

3340a 

3049 

Beans  

| 601 

655 

655 

Cotton  

| 558 

439 

400 

517 

593 

520 

Corn  

!|  22.2 

*|  23.5 

1 

1 

1 

| 26.9 

1 

| 23.2 

Win.  Wheat(f 

) 2.7 

2.3 

3.1 

2.7 

Winter  Rye..| 

3.5  a 

3.5a 

Spring  Wheat 

7.5 

8.2 

6.8 

8.6 

7.9 

Oats  

11.9 

13.8 

11.9 

17.1 

13.1 

Barley  

1 

5.7 

5.4 

5.6 

* The  final  averages  given  are  not  necessarily  the  averages  of  the 
other  figures  given  in  the  table,  but  are  the  averages  of  the  yearly  averages 
for  each  year  that  the  various  crops  were  grown, 
t 6 plats  in  1914-15;  7 in  1916. 
a 1 year’s  record,  1916. 
b 1 plat  each  1914-15;  2 in  1916. 
c 7 plats  1914-15;  11  in  1916. 
d Freed  in  1914-15;  Red  Amber  in  1916. 
e Dwarf  in  1914-15;  Dwarf  Standard  in  1916. 
f Kharkov  in  1915;  Turkey  Red  in  1914  and  1916. 


Subsoiling  has  not  proven  profitable  when  compared 
with  other  cultural  methods  used,  kafir  being  the  only 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


49 


crop  to  show  an  increased  yield  over  either  spring  or  fall 
plowing. 

Fairly  good  yields  with  all  crops  have  been  obtained 
on  listed  land. 

The  results  with  broomcorn  show  a slightly  higher 
yield  on  fall  plowed  than  on  listed  land,  but  the  difference 
in  yield  is  small. 

In  summing  up  the  yields  with  the  various  crops  under 
the  different  cultural  methods  used  at  this  Field  Station, 
subsoiling  and  summer  fallowing  have  not  proven  rela- 
tively profitable.  Fall  and  spring  plowing  and  listing  are 
indicated  as  the  methods  to  use  in  preparing  the  land. 
Which  one  to  use  will  depend  on  the  plan  of  cropping  to 
be  followed,  the  nature  of  the  land,  and  the  seasonal  con- 
ditions existing  during  the  fall,  winter  and  spring. 

The  figures  given  in  the  last  column  are  the  average 
yields  from  all  plats  of  each  crop  grown  at  the  Field 
Station.  They  are  not  the  averages  of  the  average  yields 
as  shown  in  the  table. 

The  question  often  arises  as  to  the  advisability  of 
planting  sorghum  in  drilled  rows  or  rows  closer  together 


TABLE  VIII.— YIELDS  OF  SORGO  PLANTED  IN  ROWS 
OF  VARYING  WIDTHS,  1914  TO  1916,  INCLUSIVE. 


Width 

Rows; 

inches 

Year 

Average 

1914 

| 1915 

| 1916 

Pounds 

Pounds 

Pounds 

Pounds 

8 

5100 

3820 

840 

3253 

16 

4300 

4980 

840 

3373 

24 

4840 

5400 

1160 

3860 

32 

5020 

4700 

JU 

3081 

44 

| 5093  a* 

4600 

1400 

| ' 3698 

a Average  of  rotations  and  tillage  plats. 

Freed  sorgo  grown  in  1914  and  1915.  Red  Amber 


sorgo  grown  in  1916. 


50  DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 

than  the  ordinary  width  used.  In  1914  an  experiment  was 
started  with  sorghum  planted  in  rows  8 inches,  16  inches, 
24  inches,  32  inches  and  44  inches  apart,  respectively.  In 
1914  and  1915  Freed  sorghum  was  used  for  this  work.  In 
1916  Red  Amber  sorghum  was  used.  Table  VIII,  giving 
the  results  ef  these  tests,  shows  that  the  yields  vary  with 
the  different  methods  in  certain  years.  The  results  in- 
dicate that  the  highest  yields  have  been  obtained  with  the 
crops  planted  in  24-,  32-  and  44-inch  rows. 

Table  IX  shows  the  yield  obtained  with  Mexican  June 
Corn  planted  at  different  dates.  While  corn  is  not  con- 
sidered one  of  the  staple  crops  in  the  Tucumcari  district, 
the  results  obtained  show  that  probably  the  best  yields 
can  be  obtained  by  planting  this  variety  of  corn  between 
May  1 and  June  10. 

TABLE  IX.— YIELDS  OF  MEXICAN  JUNE  CORN  OBTAINED  UNDER 

SEVERAL  DATES  OF  PLANTING,  1914  TO  1916,  INCLUSIVE. 


YEAR 


1914 

j 

1915 

1916 

Yield 

1 

Yield 

Yield 

Date 

| Date 

Date 

Stover 

Grain 

Stover  | 

Grain 

Stover 

J Grain 

Pounds 

Bush’ls 

Pounds  ^ 

jBush’ls 

Pounds 

Bush’ls 

April  3 

1240 

25.7 

April  6 

520 

dodder 

1 

April  15 

920  ] 

Fodder 

April  21 

1 1840 

| 33.6 

April  29  | 

1360  j 

dodder 

May  4 

3662* 

32.4* 

May  13 

1660 

30.2 

May  13 

1020 

11.7 

May  27 

790 

8.7 

June  8 

4640 

25.8 

June  4 

4440 

32.0 

June  10 

1240 

6.9 

June  18 

4480 

29.7 

June  24 

2755 

8.6 

July  7 

5960 

15.6 

* Average  of  tillage  and  rotation  plats. 


Considerable  difference  of  opinion  exists  as  to  the 
best  time  for  planting  such  crops  as  dwarf  milo.  Table 
X gives  the  yields  secured  with  this  crop  when  planted  on 
different  dates.  From  the  work  done  it  is  believed  that 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


51 


the  average  date  of  planting  this  crop  should  range  be- 
tween May  10  and  June  10,  the  time  depending  to  some 
extent  upon  the  seasonal  conditions. 

TABLE  X— YIELDS  OF  DWARF  YELLOW  MILO  OBTAINED  UNDER 
SEVERAL  DATES  OF  PLANTING,  1915  AND  1916. 

YEAR 


1915  1916 


Date 

Yield 

Date 

Yield 

Stover  j 

Grain 

Stover 

j Grain 

Pounds 

Bushels  | 

1 

1 

1 

Pounds  | 

1 

Bushels 

1 

April  6 

965 

8.9 

April  15 

1380 

9.3 

1 

April  29 

1500 

12.8 

May  7 

| 2045 

j 23.4 

May  13 

1715 

10.4 

May  21  

2133 

| 23.9 

May  27 

2540 

18.3 

June  4 

2368 

25.4 

June  10 

1820 

14.1 

I 

June  24 

2850 

16.4 

Table  XI  shows  the  effect  of  the  previous  crop  on  the 
yields  of  the  several  crops  obtained  on  land  cropped  con- 
tinuously and  on  land  where  the  crops  have  been  grown 
in  rotation  with  other  crops. 

It  is  noted  from  the  table  that  milo  grown  after  milo 
and  sorghum  after  sorghum  have  made  lighter  yields 
than  where  these  crops  have  been  included  in  a rotation. 
Milo  made  higher  yields  when  grown  after  cowpeas  than 
after  cotton.  Sorghum  made  higher  yields  after  cow- 
peas  than  on  land  continuously  cropped.  Millet  after 
sorghum  made  higher  yields  than  following  beans  or  win- 
ter wheat.  Cowpeas  made  higher  yields  following  cotton 
and  milo  than  after  millet.  Cotton  grown  after  milo  made 
higher  yields  than  following  cowpeas  or  cotton. 

The  yields  with  corn  show  that  very  little  difference 
was  obtained  on  plats  where  corn  followed  corn  and  on 


FIELD  STATION 
TO  1916,  INC 


52 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


O) 

£L 


DC  « OC 
O 0-  < 

< 9 w 


(fll1" 


LU 

> 

D 


< 

h 


9SBJ8AV 

37.9 

31.6 

5108 

573 

2360a 
| 2254 
3049 
655 
| 520 

23.2 

2.7 

| 3.5a 

7.9 

13.1 

5.6 

paini  asuiumg 
‘paanu^H 

43.2 

1 

| 593 

peilli  aeuirang 

45.4b 

39.1 

6040  | 

628  | 

I 

1 

3340a 

1 1 
| 517 

26.9 

3.1 

8.6 

17.1 

itaia^a 

1 

1 ' 

22.9 

|12.8 

s^-eo 

1 

1 

1 

22.6 

8.6  | 

! 5.7  | 

}i3atiAl  Suiadg 

O ZD  tH 

co  zooi 

OQ  r— 1 

-iaiuiAl 

! 1 

j 

2360a  | 

, v' 
1 

I- 

i 

-I9WA1 

|2047 

| 679| 

2.5 

uaoo 

1 

1 

|22.8 

[ 8.1 

1 13.3 

5'4i 

uo^oq 

2 si 

CO  co 

eg 

S138dA10Q 

38.6 

6353 

1 3880a]1 

| 499 

| 3.&a| 

1 

laniH 

b-co 

OO  <£> 

eg 

ss'BJ'O  trepng 

o 

aJ 

o 

o 

uaoouiooaa 

eg 

ZD 

ID 

ogaog 

4673 

2500 

1 

1 

30.2 

; i 

1310ac 

OUH 

T GO  c- 

c-  oo  io 

<M  <N 

Crop 

Milo  

Kafir  

Sorgo  (d) 

Broomcorn  (e)  

Sudan  Grass 

Millet  

Cowpeas  

Beans  

Cotton  

Corn  

Winter  Wheal  (f) 

Winter  Rye 

Spring  Wheat  

Oats  

Barley  

tf 


.S 


e^q-Sm 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


53 


plats  where  corn  had  been  grown  in  rotation  with  other 
crops.  The  effect  of  the  previous  crop  on  the  yields  ob- 
tained with  the  small  grains  has  been  small. 

With  a few  exceptions  higher  yields  were  secured  on 
summer  fallowed  land  than  on  land  previously  cropped, 
but  the  increased  cost  of  production  under  this  method 
does  not  make  it  a relatively  profitable  system  to  follow. 
The  figures  given  in  the  last  column  are  the  average 
yields  from  all  plats  of  each  crop  grown  at  the  Field 
Station.  They  are  not  the  averages  of  the  average  yields 
as  shown  in  this  table. 

Variety  Testing:  Numerous  varieties  of  crops  are 
constantly  being  recommended  or  advertised  as  being 
suitable  for  growing  in  certain  districts.  In  order  to  get 
some  definite  information  on  this  subject  quite  a num- 
ber of  varieties  of  various  crops  have  been  planted  each 
year  since  1912.  The  varieties  tested  and  the  yields  se- 
cured with  each  will  be  found  in  Table  XII. 


54 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


TABLE  XII.— YIELDS  PER  ACRE  OBTAINED  ON  PLATS  DEVOTED 
TO  VARIETY  TESTING  FROM  1912  TO  1916,  INCLUSIVE. 


CROP  j 

1912 

1913  | 

YEAR 
1914  | 

1915  | 

. I*  No.  1 

1916  | Years  | 

Aver- 

age 

Grain  Sorghums — yields  in 

bu.  per  acre; 

kafir  i 

60  lbs. 

to  bu. ; 

others 

58  lbs. 

Feterita  

15.3 

32.2 

22.3 

12.2 

4 

20.5 

Dwarf  Feterita 

19.7 

1 

19.7 

Dwarf  Blackhull  Kafir.. 

22.0 

4.1* 

39.5* 

38.9 

13.3 

5 

23.6 

Standard  Kafir  

7.4 

1 

7.4 

Early  Kafir  

20.6 

4.5 

30.1 

29.5 

13.3 

5 

19.6 

Red  Kafir  

31.7 

8.3 

2 

20.0 

Brown  Kaoliang 

15.8 

8.3 

19.1 

14.4 

4 

14.4 

Standard  Milo 

25.7 

5.6 

37.5 

16.9 

12.3 

5 

19.6 

Dwarf  Milo  

22.7 

12.9 

. 48.8* 

49.4* 

13.0 

5 

29.4 

White  Milo  

37.9 

18.6 

13.0 

3 

23.2 

Durra  X Kafir  

22.0 

7.7 

26.2 

3 

18.6 

White  Durra 

18.4 

4.1 

26.1 

3 

16.2 

Sudan  Durra  

21.8 

7.0 

35.1 

3 

M.3 

Dwarf  Hegari  

15.1 

1 

15.1 

Forage  Sorghums — yields  i 

n lbs. 

hay  pe: 

r acre. 

Gooseneck  

I 

| 

I 

14720 

1 ■ 

14720 

Freed  

5420* 

1740 

5093* 

5640 

2940 

5 . 

4167 

Red  Amber  . . . 

2080 

7010 

8400 

4561 

4 

5513 

Black  Amber  

1675 

6120 

8520 

3 

5438 

Orange  

6993 

8200 

9740 

3 

8311 

Honey  

12263 

11780 

12621 

3 

12221 

Sumac 

12048 

12060 

13140 

3 

12416 

Tennessee  Redtop  

8363 

1 

8363 

Darso  

7420 

3280 

2 

5350 

Milo  X Amber  

3341 

1 

3341 

McLean  

7181 

1 

7181 

Minnesota  Amber  

4641 

1 

4641 

Dwarf  Ashburne  

10600 

1 

10600 

Collier 

5421 

1 

5421 

Dakota  Amber 

3281 

1 

3281 

Whooper  

4281 

1 

4281 

Shrock  Kafir  

5460 

6500 

2 

5980 

Sudan  Grass  

2638 

4960 

1240 

3 

2946 

Early  Blackhull  Kafir... 

6432 

2699 

5580 

6000 

1680 

5 

4478 

Millets — yields  in  lbs.  hay  ] 

:>er  acr 

e. 

German  

3820* 

980* 

3773* 

3420 

1041 

5 

2607 

Common  | 

640 

2520 

2880 

980 

4 

1755 

Siberian  

2220 

2940 

2 

2580 

Turkestan  

2040 

1 

2040 

Kursk  

1750 

2400 

381 

3 

1510 

Japanese  

2280 

1 

2280 

Pearl  

3780 

4600 

2 

4190 

White  Proso  

2720 

720 

1740 

2000 

4 

1795 

Black  Proso  

920 

460 

1360 

1740 

4 

1120 

Cowpeas — yields  in  lbs.  ha; 

1 

y per  j 

icre. 

New  Era  

1150 

2560 

3000 

3 

2237 

Taylor  

2040 

2760 

2 

2400 

Monetta  

2040 

2660 

2 

2350 

Early  Buff  

2840 

2160 

1380 

3 

2127 

Groit  

1200 

3000 

2060 

2781 

4 

2260 

Blackeyed  

992 

3180 

2700 

3 

2291 

Logan  

2500 

1 

2500 

Iron  

3168 

2140 

3181 

3 

2830 

Brabham  

1960 

1200 

3420 

2000 

3561 

5 

2428 

Whippoorwill 

2010 

2500 

3298* 

2598* 

3861 

5 

2853 

Average  of  rotation  and  tillage  plats  for  that  year. 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


55 


TABLE  XII,  CONTINUED.— YIELDS  PER  ACRE  OBTAINED  ON  PLATS 
DEVOTED  TO  VARIETY  TESTING  FROM  1912  TO  1916,  INCLUSIVE. 


CROP 


YEAR 


| No.  f Aver- 


1912 

1913  | 

1914  | 

1916  | 

191*  | Years  I 

i age 

Broomcorn — yields  in  pounds  cleaned  brush  per 

acre. 

Dwarf  

400 

215 

666* 

628* 

400 

5 

I 462 

Dwarf- Standard  

500 

90 

770 

820 

500 

5 

1 536 

Standard  

240 

1 

240 

Beans — yields  in  lbs.  beans 

per  at 

;re. 

White  Tepary  

1 1200 

| 860 

1 2 

1 1030 

Brown  Tepary  

1010 

| 933 

1 2 

972 

WThite  Navy  

| 538 

| 143 

1 2 

| 341 

New  Mexico  Pinto 

860* 

13*| 

976*| 

633*| 

354*1 

5 1 

667 

California  Pinks  

| 63 

! 45 

1 2 

1 64 

Red  Kidney 

| 425 

1 73 

1 2 

I 249 

Bayo | 

I 

300  | 

1 

33  | 

1 

1, 

2 1 

l i 

167 

1 

Cotton — yields  in  lbs.  “seed-cotton”  per 

1 

acre. 

l_  1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 

Durango  

320 

50 

318 

180 

4 

217 

Mitchell’s  Improved  King 

125 

543 

413 

3 

860 

Columbia  

100 

100 

294 

118 

4 

163 

Early  King  

338 

280 

826* 

388* 

342* 

5 

435 

Trice  

850 

160 

574 

515 

4 

522 

Lewis  

125 

338 

2 

232 

Acala  

200 

113 

2 

167 

Burnett  '. . 

730 

150 

2 

440 

Triumph  

550 

25 

2 

288 

Shankhigh  

600 

25 

2 

313 

Lanquin  

400 

50 

2 

225 

Corn — yields  in  bu.  corn  p< 

er  acre 

. (U. 

S.  Stai 

idard.) 

Mexican  June  

26.1 

0.0 

32.4* 

30.2 

5.5* 

5 

18.8 

Reid’s  Yellow  Dent 

.3 

0.0 

20.5 

33.2 

4 

13.5 

Hickory  King  

15.2 

22.5 

2 

18.9 

Silver  Mine  

23.7 

21.6 

2 

22.7 

Pima  

29.5 

28.4 

2 

29.0 

Hopi  

0.0 

20.5 

31.2 

3 

17.2 

Stockton  

0.0 

22.8 

31.9 

3 

18.2 

Navajo  

19.6 

20.8 

2 

20.2 

Australian  White  Flint.. 

0.0 

0.0 

18.8 

18.1 

4 

9.2 

Chinese  

10.0 

12.5 

2 

11.3 

Peanuts — yields  in  lbs.  per 

acre. 

Valencia  

1 1135 

| 1333 

2 

| 1234 

Virginia  Bunch  

1 1095 

| 1425 

2 

! 1260 

Spanish 

500  I 

1 

1160 1 

1358 

3 | 

1006 

Irish  Potatoes — (Ordinary 

.reatment)  yields  in 

bu.  (6( 

lbs.) 

1 

per  acre 

[' 

Early  Ohio  

10.0 

95.0 

1.7 

3 

' 35.6 

Irish  Cobbler  

11.1 

60.0 

7.5 

3 

26.2 

Green  Mountain  

7.8 

29.2 

10.8 

3 

15.9 

Rural  N.  Y.  No.  2 

2.8 

37.5 

15.0 

3 

18.4 

Pearl  

5.0 

68.4 

11.7 

1 3 

28.4 

Early  Six  Weeks  

19.2 

1 

19.2 

Burbank  

13.3 

1 

13.3 

Triumph  

29.2 

2.9 

2 

16.1 

Irish  Potatoes — (Covered  at 

; emerg 

;ence  w 

rith  ab< 

)ut  6 in.  of  st 

raw.)  yields  in 

bu.  (60  lbs.)  per  acre. 

Early  Ohio  

133.4 

13.3 

2 

73.4 

Irish  Cobbler  

47.5 

18.3 

2 

32.9 

Green  Mountain  

53.4 

30.8 

2 

42.1 

Rural  N.  Y.  No.  2 

59.2 

21.7 

2 

40.5 

Pearl  

50.0 

5.8 

2 

27.9 

Triumph  

1 

12.5 

.4 

2 

6.5 

Average  of  rotation  and  tillage  plats  for  that  year. 


56 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


GRAIN  SORGHUMS.  The  average  yields  obtained 
with  the  varieties  of  grain  sorghums  show  that  dwarf 
milo,  white  milo,  dwarf  blackhull  kafir,  feterita,  and  pos- 
sibly red  kafir  are  the  leading  grain  sorghums  that  can 
be  recommended  for  eastern  New  Mexico.  Of  these  va- 
rieties it  is  probable  that  dwarf  milo,  dwarf  blackhull 
kafir  and  feterita  are  the  most  dependable. 


Fig.  12. — “Heading”  Dwarf  Yellow  Milo  in  1915,  Tucumcari  Field  Station; 
showing  common  method  of  harvesting  for  grain.  Requires  only  pocket- 
knives,  barge  and  team.  Average  in  fair  years,  about  a ton  a day  per  man. 

FORAGE  SORGHUMS.  Nineteen  varieties  of  for- 
age sorghums  have  been  grown  and  tested  from  one  to 
five  years. 

The  yields  secured  show  that  honey  and  sumac  have 
made  the  highest  average  yields  during  a three-year  test. 
Red  Amber,  Freed  and  Black  Amber  have  been  tried  from 
three  to  five  years  and  while  the  yields  with  these  va  lie  ties 
have  not  been  high  they  have  produced  fair  crops  and  are 
among  the  most  dependable  varieties.  Some  of  the  va- 
rieties have  been  tried  only  one  year ; therefore,  sufficient 
time  has  not  elapsed  to  tell  what  the  average  yields  for 
these  varieties  will  be.  Sudan  grass,  while  not  giving  a 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


57 


high  average  yield  for  the  three  years  tested,  is  the  best 
crop  to  grow  for  hay.  Early  blackhull  kafir,  on  account 
of  the  quality  of  the  forage  and  amount  of  grain  produced, 
is  a valuable  crop  to  grow,  especially  for  silage. 

MILLETS.  The  yields  secured  with  the  nine  varie- 
ties tested  indicate  that  some  of  them  will  produce  good 
yields  during  favorable  seasons  and  are  valuable  as  catch 
crops. 

COWPEAS.  Ten  varieties  of  cowpeas  have  been 
tested  at  the  Station.  From  the  yields  secured  it  is  noted 
that  the  Whippoorwill,  Iron,  Brabham  and  Taylor  have 
produced  the  highest  average  yields. 


Fig.  13. — Homemade  Cowpea-Bean  Harvester.  In  use  at  Tucumcari  Field 
Station.  (The  blocks  behind  are  only  for  holding  the  implement  off  the 
ground  to  show  knives.) 


BROOM  CORN.  Broomcorn  is  ranked  among  the  im- 
portant cash  crops  for  the  eastern  part  of  New  Mexico. 
The  dwarf  and  dwarf  standard  have  produced  the  highest 
yields  in  variety  tests  and  are  probably  the  best  varieties 
to  grow  in  this  section. 


58 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


BEANS.  Of  the  varieties  tested  at  the  Station  the 
New  Mexico  Pinto  beans  and  the  White  and  Brown 
Tepary  beans  have  produced  the  highest  average  yields. 
The  New  Mexico  Pinto  bean  is  the  most  important  va- 
riety grown  in  the  State. 

COTTON.  Several  varieties  of  cotton  have  been 
tested  each  year  since  the  Station  was  started.  Though 
cotton  is  not  generally  grown  in  eastern  New  Mexico  at 
the  present  time,  some  idea  may  be  had  by  a study  of  the 
yields  obtained  as  to  the  possibilities  of  the  crop  for  this 
section. 

CORN.  While  some  of  the  varieties  of  corn  have 
made  fair  yields  for  two  or  more  years,  it  is  not  believed 
that  corn  will  rank  in  importance  with  milo  and  kafir 
through  a series  of  years  when  both  the  grain  and  the 
stover  produced  are  taken  into  consideration. 


Fig.  14. — Red  Amber  Sorgo  from  1-10  Acre.  Whippoorwill  Cowpeas  to  left. 
Alfalfa  in  cocks  at  back.  Corn  and  Milo  further  back.  Other  shocks 
Red  Amber  Sorgo  to  right  and  rear.  Tucumcari  Field  Station,  1916. 

PEANUTS.  Results  secured  with  two  years’  testing 
indicate  that  peanuts  will  probably  do  fairly  well  on  the 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


59 


sandy  soils  in  this  region.  The  greatest  difficulty  in  pro- 
ducing a crop  will  be  the  depredations  of  rabbits.  Unless 
the  crop  is  protected  by  a rabbit-proof  fence  or  unless 
they  are  grown  on  a large  scale,  peanuts  will  not  be  a 
profitable  crop  to  grow. 

POTATOES.  Several  varieties  of  Irish  potatoes 
have  been  grown  at  the  Station.  One  lot  received  the  or- 
dinary treatment  of  planting  and  cultivating  while  the 
other  was  covered  with  straw  about  the  time  the  plants 
were  coming  up.  Some  difference  in  yields  was  obtained 
with  the  two  methods,  but  it  is  indicated  that  more  work 
will  have  to  be  done  before  definite  conclusions  can  be 
drawn.  It  is  generally  considered,  and  these  results  seem 
to  indicate,  that  potatoes  are  not  a profitable  crop  to 
grow.  A small  area  should  be  planted,  however,  for  home 
use  each  year. 


Successful  Dry  Farming 


To  make  a success  of  dry  farming  the  farmer  should 
make  free  use  of  all  reliable  literature  on  the  subject;  he 
should  study  the  methods  of  successful  farmers,  and  then 
govern  his  own  farming  practices  accordingly. 

In  eastern  New  Mexico  good  grain  crops  even  of 
milo  and  kafir  are  by  no  means  always  certain.  Past  ex- 
perience has  shown  that  in  the  best  years  large  grain  crops 
and  good  feed  crops  may  be  raised  by  almost  any  method 
of  farming.  During  the  worst  years  nothing  but  a fodder 
crop  may  usually  be  grown,  while  in  normal  years  profit- 
able crops  are  assured  only  by  practicing  the  best  known 
adaptable  methods  of  farming. 

Dry  farming,  as  practically  every  other  type  of  farm- 
ing nowadays,  usually  requires,  for  best  results,  consider- 
able capital;  for  the  purchase  of  the  necessary  farming 
implements,  stock,  and  sufficient  of  the  necessities  of  life 
not  only  for  the  first  year,  but  also  to  tide  over  at  least 
another  year.  Without  at  least  sufficient  capital  or  credit 
to  tide  over  the  first  two  years,  the  chances  for  success  will 
be  very  materially  reduced. 

A survey  of  the  methods  practiced  by  successful  set- 
tlers will  show  that  in  almost  every  case  livestock  has 
been  the  basis  of  their  success.  This  is  a stock  farming 
country  and  although  an  occasional  successful  crop  farmer 
may  be  found  he  is  the  exception  rather  than  the  rule. 
Many  well  informed  persons  state  that  there  is  no  better 
stock  breeding  section  than  this.  Due  to  our  comparative- 
ly mild  climate  and  open  winters,  a very  high  percentage 
of  calves  and  other  young  stock  are  raised.  No  prospect- 
ive settler  will  go  wrong  if  he  follows  the  lead  of  other 
successful  settlers  and  uses  livestock  as  the  nucleus 
around  which  to  build  all  other  farming  operations. 


DRY  FARMING  IN  EASTERN  NEW  MEXICO. 


61 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. 

Acknowledgments  are  due  Professors  E.  C.  Chilcott, 
Agriculturist  in  Charge,  Office  of  Dry-Land  Agriculture ; 
and  J.  S.  Cole,  Agriculturist,  Office  of  Dry-Land  Agri- 
culture, for  assistance  in  the  preparation  of  the  manu- 
script of  this  bulletin ; also  to  the  Division  of  Publications 
of  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  for  the  photo- 
graph from  which  Figure  1 was  made. 


* 


1 


iU 


UNIVERSITY  or  RJUM08  UDO: 


BULLETIN  No.  105 


MARCH,  1917 


New  Mexico  College  of  Agriculture 

And  Mechanic  Arts 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 

STATE  COLLEGE,  N.  M. 


NEW  MEXICO  PINTO  BEAN  FIELD,  SAN  MIGUEL  COUNTY. 


New  Mexico  Beans 


By  FABIAN  GARCIA 


CITIZEN  PRESS 
Las  Cruces, 

N.  M. 


NEW  MEXICO  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT 
STATION 


BOARD  OF  CONTROL 


Board  of  Regents  of  the  College 

C.  L.  HILL,  President,  Hill,  N.  M. 

R.  E.  PUTNEY,  Secretary  and  Treasurer,  Albuquerque,  N.  M. 

E.  C.  CRAMPTON,  Raton,  N.  M. 

M.  Y.  MONICAL,  Dexter,  N.  M. 

J.  S.  QUESENBERRY,  Las  Cruces,  N.  M. 

Advisory  Members 

HON.  W.  E.  LINDSEY,  Governor  of  New  Mexico,  Santa  Fe,  N.  M. 
HON.  J.  H.  WAGNER,  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction, 
Santa  Fe,  N.  M. 


STATION  STAFF 


GEO.  E.  LADD,  Ph.  D 

FABIAN  GARCIA,  M.  S.  A.... 
LUTHER  FOSTER,  M.  S.  A.. . 

D.  E.  MERRILL,  M.  S 

L.  A.  HIGLEY,  Ph.  D 

R.  L.  STEWART,  M.  S.  A 

D.  W.  A.  BLOODGOOD,  B.  S.. 
J.  D.  HUNGERFORD,  B.  S.. 

JOSE  QUINTERO,  B.  S 

J.  R.  MEEKS,  B.  S.  A 

J.  W.  RIGNEY,  B.  S.  A 

E.  J.  MAYNARD,  B.  S.  A 

A.  B.  FITE,  B.  S.  A 

J.  T.  BARLOW,  B.  S.  A 

F.  C.  WERKENTHIN,  M.  A.. 
R.  B.  THOMPSON,  B.  S.  A,... 

K.  B.  OGILVIE,  B.  S 

H.  G.  SMITH*  B.  S.  A 

FLOY  E.  FRENCH 

R.  V.  WARE 

C.  P.  WILSON,  M.  S 


President  of  the  College 

Director  and  Horticulturist 

Animal  Husbandman 

Biologist 

Chemist 

Agronomist 

Irrigation  Engineer 

Nutrition  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Animal  Husbandman 

Assistant'  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Animal  Husbandman 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant'  Agronomist 

Assistant  Biologist 

' Assistant  Poultryman 

Assistant  in  Irrigation 

Assistant  in  Dry-Land  Agriculture 

Librarian 

Registrar 

Secretary  and  Editor 


‘Superintendent  of  the  Tucumcari,  N.  M.,  Field  Station,  operated  by  the 
U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  in  cooperation  with  the  New  Mexico  Agricul- 
tural Experiment  Station. 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS 


Introduction 

In  this  bulletin  will  be  found  articles  written  by  a 
number  of  the  county  agricultural  agents  of  their  respec- 
tive counties : Bernalillo,  Torrance,  San  Miguel,  Colfax, 
and  Union.  These  articles  give  information  regarding 
bean  culture  in  the  counties  mentioned,  local  conditions 
taken  into  consideration. 

While  beans  have  been  grown  in  New  Mexico  for 
probably  the  past  three  centuries,  not  until  the  past  few 
years  has  much  interest  been  taken  in  this  crop.  The 
bean  has  been,  and  is  at  the  present  time,  one  of  the  most 
staple  foods  of  the  native  population.  This  crop  is  get- 
ting to  be  an  important  one  in  the  irrigated  as  well  as  in 
the  dry-farming  communities.  According  to  the  United 
States  Census  Report  for  1910,*  5,147,580  pounds  of 
beans  were  raised  in  New  Mexico  in  1909,  valued  at 
$232,023.  During  the  past  four  years  the  output  has  been 
very  materially  increased  and  for  1916,  New  Mexico  was 
reported  as  fourth  among  the  States  in  the  production  of 
beans.  According  to  the  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture  Crop  Report  for  December,  1916,**  New 
Mexico  produced  in  1914,  1915,  and  1916,  16,320,000, 
22,080,000,  and  22,500,000  pounds,  valued  at  $615,000, 
$828,000,  and  $1,488,000,  respectively.  From  this  it  will 
be  seen  that  the  increase  in  production,  as  well  as  in 
value,  of  the  New  Mexico  bean  crop,  since  1910,  has  been 
marked.  About  90  per  cent  to  95  per  cent  of  the  crop  is 
of  the  New  Mexico  Pinto  variety. 

Freeman  of  Arizona,  in  Bulletin  No.  68,  speaking  of 
the  economic  value  of  the  bean  in  the  United  States, 

‘United  States  Census  Report  for  1910. 

“These  figures  have  been  computed  from  the  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture  Monthly  Crop  Report  for  December,  1916, 


4 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


quotes  Tracy*  as  follows:  4 ‘Next  to  the  potato  the  bean 
is  by  far  the  most  important  vegetable  of  this  country. 
Being  sold  in  the  United  States  under  more  than  400 
varietal  names  and  having  at  least  185  distinct  types,  it 
easily  stands  first  among  the  vegetables  in  the  number 
of  varieties.”  The  New  Mexico  varieties  of  beans  are 
among  the  most  drouth  resistant  vegetables  grown  in 
the  State,  being  well  adapted  to  our  dry,  hot  climate.  Pew 
of  the  introduced  varieties  which  have  been  tried  have 
been  so  well  adapted  to  the  New  Mexico  conditions,  par- 
ticularly in  the  drier  and  warmer  valleys.  This  agrees 
with  Professor  Thornber**  of  Arizona,  who  is  authority 
for  the  statement  that  “only  a small  percentage  of  the 
species  or  varieties  developed  in  sections  having  decid- 
edly different  climates  from  that  of  Arizona  may  be  suc- 
cessfully cultivated  here.”  This  may  be  applied  to  New 
Mexico,  as  well,  since  the  climates  of  both  States  are 
quite  similar. 

This  suggests  the  importance  of  utilizing  and  im- 
proving many  of  our  native  varieties  of  vegetables,  in- 
stead of  trying  to  adapt  varieties  of  other  origin.  We 
find  in  the  cultivated  districts  of  New  Mexico  a number 
of  varieties*  not  only  of  vegetables  but  of  grains  and 
other  crops,  which,  through  the  course  of  cultivation  and 
unconscious  selection  by  the  growers,  have  become  adapt- 
ed to  our  dry,  hot  conditions.  If  these  varieties  were 
improved,  no  doubt  they  would  produce,  in  many  cases, 
crops  considerably  larger  and  of  better  quality  than  at 
present. 

“The  Mexican  Frijole  Bean.” 

We  frequently  see  articles  printed  in  newspapers, 
and  sometimes  even  in  semi-scientific  literature,  and  hear 
people— especially  those  from  the  East— discussing  the 
Mexican  “frijole”  bean.  From  information  obtained 

‘American  Varieties  of  Garden  Beans,  W.  W.  Tracy,  Jr.,  U.  S.  Department 
of  Agriculture,  Bulletin  No.  109  (1907). 

**G.  F.  Freeman,  Arizona  Bulletin  No.  68. 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


5 


from  such  sources,  it  would  appear  that  this  so-called 
Mexican  “frijole”  bean  was  some  new  species  or  some 
extraordinary  vegetable.  There  seems  to  be  an  erroneous 
idea  of  what  this  bean  is.  “Frijole,”  no  doubt,  has  been 
derived  from  the  Spanish  word  frijol,  which  is  the  term 
used  for  the  botanical  species  of  the  Phaseolus  (Linn.) ; 
just  as  in  English  the  word  bean  is  used  for  the  different 
species  of  the  same  genus.  We  speak  of  “ frijol  ama- 
rillo”  or  “ frijol  bianco,”  meaning  yellow  or  white  bean. 

Varieties. 

While  in  the  past  this  crop  was  not  raised  on  a suf- 
ficiently large  scale  to  be,  shipped  out,  it  has  always  been 
grown  for  home  use.  No  doubt,  in  the  course  of  so  many 
years  of  cultivation  and  through  unconscious  selection, 
varieties  which  have  adapted  themselves  to  New  Mexico 
conditions  have  been  produced ; and  today,  when  the  bean 
crop  in  the  State  is  assuming  such  important  proportions, 
there  are  one  or  two  important  native  varieties. 

The  New  Mexico  Pinto  bean  has  been  known  to  the 
native  bean  growers  and  to  the  first  settlers  as  the  Rosillo 
bean,  and  this  is  today  the  principal  commercial  variety 
that  is  being  grown  in  New  Mexico.  It  is  very  drouth 
resistant,  requiring  a comparatively  small  amount  of 
moisture  to  mature  it ; it  is  of  large  size,  a good  yielder, 
and  very  palatable.  In  the  Twenty-fourth  Annual  Report 
of  the  New  Mexico  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  this 
variety  is  mentioned  as  the  Rosillo  bean  and  as  being  of 
a white  and  grayish  color.  It  is  the  largest  of  the  native 
varieties  now  being  grown  and  is  peculiarly  marked. 
While  the  name  Pinto  has  now  been  adopted,  its  markings, 
are  of  a splotchy  nature ; in  other  words,  the  outlines  be- 
tween the  two  colors  are  very  irregular.  It  is  irregularly 
marked  with  olive  drab  to  greenish  etches.  The  cream 
ground  color  has  a slight  pinkish  tinge.  Strictly  speak- 
ing, the  Spanish  word  “ pinto”  gives  the  idea  of  mark- 
ings of  more  regular  outline  than  those  on  this  bean. 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


£ 


FIG.  1. — Beans  in  Exhibit  at  New  Mexico  State  Fair,  1916.  1,  New  Mexico  Pinto;  2,  Mixed  Seed; 
3,  Ancient  Yellow;  4,  Garden  Brown;  5,  Bolita;  6,  Navy. 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


7 


The  other  variety  that  has  been  generally  planted 
and  is  at  the  present  time  of  more  or  less  importance  is 
the  Bayo.  This  is  slightly  earlier  than  the  New  Mexico 
Pinto  and  seems  to  be  preferred  by  many  of  the  native 
farmers  for  irrigated  land.  It  is  almost  as  large  as  the 
New  Mexico  Pinto,  but  is  of  a more  solid  color,  being 
almost  a tan,  though  varying  to  a light  yellowish.  A 
larger  variation  of  the  Bayo  is  found  in  some  of  the 
northern  counties.  Another  variety  that  was  formerly 
used  quite  extensively  is  the  one  that  we  now  propose  to 
name  the  “ Ancient  Yellow.  ” This  is  of  a solid  yellow 
color  and  is  a little  smaller  than  the  Bayo.  It  is,  on  the 
whole,  a little  earlier  than  the  other  two  varieties.  In 
the  lower  and  warmer  valleys  two  crops  from  this  variety 
are  often  raised  during  the  year. 

A fourth  variety,  which  has  been  grown  to  some 
extent  during  recent  years,  is  the  one  known  as  the  Cali- 
fornia Pink;  this  being  one  of  the  commercial  varieties 
raised  in  California.  This  is  slightly  larger  than  the 
Ancient  Yellow  and  a little  smaller  than  the  Bayo.  It 
resembles  the  latter  somewhat,  but  is  of  a dark  pinkish 
color.  This  bean  is  not  quite  so  well  adapted  to  New 
Mexico  conditions,  particularly  for  the  irrigated  districts. 
It  is  considerably  later  in  ripening,  frequently  makes  too 
much  vine  and  the  yields  have  been  rather  small.  Be- 
cause of  its  tendency  to  produce  a rather  large  vine  and 
ripen  late,  sometimes  the  bean  beetle  reduces  the  crop. 
The  Tepary,  which  is  a comparatively  new  variety  in 
New  Mexico,  is  now  attracting  some  attention.  It  is  an 
exceedingly  hardy  bean  and  will  stand  considerable 
drouth.  It  produces  a larger  vine  and  yields  well,  but 
shatters  badly.  The  bean  as  yet  has  not  been  used  very 
extensively  for  culinary  purposes  and  does  not  cook  quite 
as  readily  as  the  other  varieties.  The  vines  are  very 
prolific,  producing  a large  number  of  small  pods  filled 
with  quite  small  white  beans.  The  Tepary  is  a little 
smaller  than  the  navy  bean  and  is  of  the  same  color. 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


At  the  Experiment  Station  many  of  the  large  number 
of  introduced  beans  tried  last  year  gave  results  that  were 
not  very  satisfactory.  The  navy  variety  did  fairly,  well. 
Apparently,  the  temperature  was  too  high  and  the  rela- 
tive humidity  too  low.  It  is  the  intention  to  eliminate 


FIG.  2. — Plants  Selected  for  Improvement  Work  with  the  Ancient 
Yellow  Bean. 


such  of  the  varieties  as  do  not  appear  to  be  well  adapted 
to  New  Mexico  conditions  and  select  seed  from  the  more 
promising  ones. 

The  following  table  will  give  an  idea  as  to  the  com- 
parative number  of  pods  and  beans  that  the  Tepary,  New 
Mexico  Pinto,  Ancient  Yellow  and  Bayo  varieties  pro- 
duced:— 


TAFJE  1. 


1 1 

1 Number  1 

Tot  1 

1 

| Average 

I To  VI 

i Tot  1 

Average 

VARIETY 

lot  Vines!  Number 

| Number 

| Number  | Weight 

Number 

lObservedl 

of  lods 

of  rods 

lof  Eeanslof  Bems; 

of  Beans. 

1 

1 

per  Vine| 

1 

| ' ozs. 

per  Pod 

Tepary  

1 

5 | 

430 

86 

| 14S1 

! 9 

3.4 

Ancient  Yellow 

i 

3 | 

216 

1 

1 917 

I 8 

1 

4.2 

New  Mexico  Pinto  — 

188 

37 

661 

7 

1 

3.5 

Bayo  1 

5 | 

1 

166 

1 

33 

630 

7 1 

1 

3.8 

NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


9 


It  will  be  noted  that  the  Tepary  produced  a larger 
number  of  pods  and  beans  than  any  of  the  other  varieties. 
The  Ancient  Yellow  also  produced  a large  number  of 
pods.  The  New  Mexico  Pinto  was  third  and  the  Bayo 
was  last. 

Sails. 

Beans,  like  many  other  vegetables,  can  be  grown  on 
almost  any  kind  of  soil,  provided  special  care  is  taken 
in  the  germination  of  the  seed  and  cultivation  of  the  crop. 
However,  the  best  soil  for  this  vegetable  is  of  a light 
character,  from  a loam  to  a sandy  loam.  The  adobe  or 
hard  clay  soil  is  not  so  well  suited  to  beans.  If  the  crop 
is  to  be  grown  on  the  tighter  soil  it  will  require  more 
care  to  get  a good  stand  and  in  the  cultivation  of  it. 
Beans  belong  to  the  leguminous  or  nitrogen  gathering 
plants  and  may  be  grown  on  poorer  soils  than  many  other 
vegetables. 

Methods  of  Planting. 

It  is  very  important  to  get  a good  stand,  if  a large 
yield  is  to  be  expected.  Therefore,  practically  every 
bean  planted  should  germinate.  Under  irrigation,  fre- 
quently bean  growers  fail  to  get  a good  germination, 
while  under  dry  farming  conditions,  lack  of  sufficient 
moisture  often  gives  a similar  result. 

Under  irrigation,  at  the  present  time,  there  are  two 
methods  of  planting  beans  that  are  generally  practiced: 
the  native,  or  wet  method,  and  the  new,  or  dry  method. 
There  is  a third  method,  which  is  not  general  and  which 
might  be  called  the  furrow  method. 

New,  or  Dry,  Method. 

This  method  consists  first  in  thoroughly  plowing, 
harrowing  and  preparing  the  seed  bed,  then  in  drilling 
or  planting  the  seed;  next,  in  irrigating  (usually  flood- 
ing) to  produce  germination  of  the  seed.  In  using  this 
method  in  irrigated  districts  the  seed  may  be  planted 
with  a drill,  with  a bean  or  corn  planter,  with  a lister, 
or  plowed  in  furrows.  The  important  feature,  however, 


10 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


is  the  irrigation  to  produce  germination.  Care  should 
be  taken  that  the  beans  are  not  put  in  too  deeply,  or  else 
a large  percentage  of  them  will  not  be  able  to  break 
through  the  crust  which  is  formed  on  the  surface  by  the 
irrigation  water. 

It  has  been  observed  during  the  bean  experiments 
which  have  been  conducted  at  the  Station  that  in  addition 
to  the  crusting  of  the  surface  soil,  as  a rule,  many  weeds 
begin  to  germinate  immediately  after  the  ground  is  irri- 
gated, and  in  most  cases  a large  percentage  of  them 
will  sprout  ahead  of  the  beans.  By  the  time  the  latter 


FIG.3. — Planting  New  Mexico  Pinto  Beans  with  a Corn  Planter,  Under 


Dry-farming  Conditions. 

are  up  so  that  the  row  can  be  seen  the  whole  surface 
between  the  rows  will  be  pretty  well  grown  up  with 
weeds ; particularly  if  the  ground  has  been  allowed  to  be- 
come foul  with  them  in  previous  years.  This  will  make  it 
necessary  to  begin  cultivating  the  weeds  out  immediately ; 
if  allowed  to  grow  for  some  time  they  will  interfere  with 
the  proper  development  of  the  bean  plant.  It  has  been 
observed  that,  as  a rule,  it  takes  more  hoeing  and  culti- 
vating to  produce  the  crop  when  it  has  been  irrigated  up, 
and  usually  it  becomes  necessary  to  irrigate  the  field 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


11 


very  soon  after  germination  lias' taken  place.  This  in- 
creases the  number  of  irrigations  to  mature  the  crop. 

This  method  can  be  used  under  dry-farming  condi- 
tions, except  that  the  moisture  for  the  germination  of  the 
seed  will  have  to  come  from  the  rains. 

Native,  or  Wet,  Method. 

This  method  consists  first  in  preparing  the  land  for 
irrigation.  The  preparation  consists  in  breaking  down 
the  old  weeds,  raking  them  up  in  piles  and  burning  them, 
and  in  plowing  up  borders  for  the  control  of  the  water 
while  irrigating  the  land.  After  this  is  done  the  land  is 
irrigated  to  add  the  moisture  necessary  to  produce  ger- 
mination when  the  seed  is  planted.  As  soon  as  the  soil 
is  dry  enough  so  that  the  plow  will  scour,  the  land  is 
plowed,  usually  with  a small  plow.  The  beans  are  planted 
in  furrows  and  covered  as  the  land  is  being  plowed.  The 
method  usually  followed  in  planting  the  seed  is  to  have 
a man  or  boy  follow  behind  the  plow  and  drop  the  seed 
in  the  furrow.  See  Fig.  4. 


FIG.  4. — Planting  by  the  Native,  or  Wet,  Method. 


12 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


The  seed  may  be  dropped  in  hills  or  in  a continuous 
row.  The  practice  by  the  native  farmers  is  to  drop  it  in 
hills  about  a foot  apart  and,  as  a rule,  the  distance  or 
width  between  the  rows  is  three  or  four  furrows.  In 
practice  it  is  found  that  the  width  between  the  rows  varies 
considerably.  This  is  due  in  part  to  the  fact  that  those 
who  do  the  plowing  do  not  pay  particular  attention  to 
this  point.  It  is  also  found  that  the  rows  are  not  very 
straight.  Due  to  the  unevenness  of  the  distance  between 
the  rows,  it  is  somewhat  difficult  to  cultivate  the  crop 
with  bean  cultivators. 

An  improvement  along  this  line  can  be  made  by  being 
more  careful,  having  the  rows  straighter  and  the  distance 
between  uniform.  The  Station  is  at  present  investigating 
a gang  plow  that  will  plow  the  necessary  width  between 
the  rows  at  one  time  and  drop  the  seed  in  the  furrow. 
This  will  perform  the  operation  of  plowing  the  land, 
dropping  the  seed  and  covering  it  at  the  same  time,  thus 
reducing  the  expense  of  the  crop,  for  the  reason  that  one 
man  and  team  can  do  the  work  of  three  teams  and  four 
men.  It  will  also  tend  to  plant  the  seed  at  a more  uniform 
depth,  because  all  of  the  land  will  be  plowed  the  same 
depth. 

After  the  beans  have  been  plowed  under  in  the  moist 
soil,  the  land  is  dragged  with  any  kind  of  smoothing  drag 
or  an  Acme  harrow.  The  old  practice  is  to  use  some 
sort  of  drag  to  smooth  the  soil  and  pack  it.  It  is  believed 
that  the  Acme  harrow  will  perform  the  same  functions 
as  a drag  and  at  the  same  time  leave  a mulch  on  the  sur- 
face which  should,  to  a large  degree,  reduce  the  evapora- 
tion from  the  moist  soil. 

In  plowing  the  beans  in,  better  germination  may  be 
had  if  they  are  not  over  3 to  4 inches  in  depth,  though 
fair  results  may  be  expected  from  a 5-inch  depth.  If 
planted  over  5 inches  deep,  or  as  shallow  as  1 inch,  the 
germination  may  be  poor.  The  crop  may  be  planted  in 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


13 


rows  2 to  3 feet  apart,  and  the  seed  should  be  dropped 
from  6 to  12  inches  in  the  row.  In  the  experiments  con- 
ducted at  the  Station,  the  plats  which  were  planted  with 
beans  6 inches  apart  in  the  row  gave  the  largest  yields. 
(See  Table  3.) 


FIG.  5. — Planting  Beans  wilfr  a Single  row  Planter. 


In  many  ways  the  native,  or  wet,  method,  has  advan- 
tages over  the  dry  method.  If  the  land  is  properly  irri- 
gated and  plowed  and  the  beans  are  put  in  in  the  right 
way,  one  may  be  able  to  get  an  almost  perfect  stand. 
Also  fewer  weeds  come  up,  because  the  weed  seeds  which 
start  to  germinate  when  the  land  is  irrigated  will  be  de- 
stroyed when  the  beans  are  being  plowed  under.  When 
the  beans  are  planted  in  this  way  they  seem  to  withstand 
considerable  drouth,  and  do  not  need  irrigation  for  a long 
time  after  they  have  come  up.  As  a rule,  they  require 
less  cultivation,  hoeing,  and  irrigation  than  when  planted 
by  the  dry  method. 


14 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


The  native,  or  wet,  method  can  be  used  under  dry- 
farming conditions,  and  will  usually  give  satisfactory 
results,  if  there  is  sufficient  moisture  in  the  soil  for 
proper  germination. 

Furrow  Method. 

This  method  is  not  generally  practiced,  but  if  prop- 
erly used  it  js  quite  likely  that  a good  stand  can  be  had. 
After  the  beans  are  planted  in  the  dry  soil,  furrows  are 
made  between  the  rows  with  any  kind  of  a furrower  and 
the  water  is  applied  through  these  furrows.  The  moist- 
ure reaches  the  seed  through  percolation.  In  this  way 
not  much  of  a crust  will  form  over  the  seed.  It  would 
take  longer  to  irrigate,  because  the  irrigating  would  have 
to  be  done  very  carefully  and  slowly. 

Alkali. 

While  beans  are  very  resistant  to  drouth  and  heat 
they  are  not  so  to  alkali,  and  if  the  soil  is  heavily  laden 
with  any  of  the  soluble  salts,  the  stand  is  likely  to  be 
poor,  though  all  of  the  other  factors  may  have  been  favor- 
able for  germination.  Figure  8 shows  a strip  in  the 
middle  of  the  plat  with  very  few  plants.  This  seems  to 
be  due  to  the  excess  of  soluble  salts  in  the  soil. 

Preparation  of  the  Seed  Bed. 

Under  dry-farming  conditions,  where  there  is  no 
water  for  irrigation  and  where  the  farmer  is  dependent 
on  the  rainfall,  bean  growers  should  exert  every  effort 
to  conserve  all  of  the  moisture  possible,  taking  advantage 
of  all  of  the  natural  conditions  and  planting  the  beans 
at  the  time  when  they  can  get  the  most  good  out  of  the 
moisture  in  the  soil ; provided,  of  course,  it  is  not  too  late 
for  the  crop  to  mature. 

This  being  the  case  it  can  readily  be  seen  that,  under 
dry-farming  conditions,  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance 
to  catch  and  conserve  all  the  moisture  possible  in  the 
winter  and  spring.  Therefore,  the  dry  farmer  should 
give  this  matter  his  undivided  attention.  The  practice 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


15 


should  be,  wherever  the  soil  and  climatic  conditions  are 
favorable,  for  the  land  to  be  plowed  in  the  fall,  winter, 
or  early  spring,  in  order  to  catch  as  much  of  the  moisture 
as  possible. 

It  is  considered  at  the  present  time  that  the  fall  or 
early  winter  plowing  should  be  quite  deep,  probably  from 
8 to  10  inches,  while  the  spring  plowing  should,  as  a rule, 
be  somewhat  shallower.  Some  farmers  practice  disking 
fall  plowed  land  and  leaving ‘it  in  that  condition  through 
the  winter.  Others  simply  leave  it  in  the  rough  condi- 
tion. In  the  spring,  the  land,  whether  fall  or  spring 
plowed,  should  be  disked  and  harrowed.  It  may  also  be 
smoothed  before  planting.  Considerable  care  should  be 
exercised  in  all  of  these  operations  in  districts  where  the 
soil  tends  to  drift  and  blow.  In  some  of  the  dry  farming 
districts  bean  growers  list  their  beans  in  the  spring. 

Planting. 

This  crop  may  be  planted  with  a lister,  bean  or  corn 
planter,  grain  drill,  or  may  be  dropped  by  hand  in  the 
furrow.  In  a number  of  the  bean  growing  sections,  par 
ticularly  among  the  native  farmers,  the  beans  are  plowed 
in;  that  is  to  say,  they  are  dropped  in  the  furrow  and 
covered  over  with  a plow  as  the  land  is  being  plowed. 
Up  to  the  present  time  there  is  considerable  difference 
of  opinion  as  to  the  best  distance  to  plant,  and  because 
of  this  fact  the  planting  is  being  done  in  rows  2,  2 y2,  3, 
3 y2>  and  even  4 feet  apart.  Under  dry  farming,  where 
the  moisture  is  somewhat  limited,  it  is  well  not  to  plant 
too  thickly.  Until  more  experimental  work  is  done  along 
this  line  it  would  be  a difficult  matter  to  say  just  what 
is  the  best  distance  to  plant,  but  probably  from  3 to  3 y2 
feet  between  the  rows  and  from  10  to  20  pounds  of  seed 
per  acre,  would  give  as  good  results  as  any  distance  in 
most  of  the  dry-farming  districts.  Under  irrigation, 
thicker  planting  can  be  practiced,  and  the  amount  of  seed 
that  may  be  planted  per  acre  varies  from  25  to  35  pounds. 


16 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


Time  to  Plant. 

The  date  of  planting  varies  with  the  locality  and  the 
altitude,  and  also  with  the  moisture  in  the  soil.  For  this 
reason,  beans  are  being  planted  from  early  in  the  spring 
to  late  in  July.  The  thing  to  keep  in  mind  is  that  they 
must  he  planted  early  enough  so  that  they  will  mature 
the  crop.  As  a rule,  under  normal  conditions,  it  will 
take  about  90  days  for  most  of  the  native  varieties  to 
ripen  properly.  By  knowing  about  when  the  first  killing 
frost  may  be  expected  in  the  fall,  the  grower  will  be  able 
to  know  the  approximate  latest  date  that  the  planting 
may  safely  be  done.  However,  everything  considered,  it 
would  be  better,  if  all  the  factors  remain  favorable,  for 
the  beans  to  be  planted  early.  Aside  from  the  earlier 
maturing  of  the  crop,  much  of  the  damage  that  is  often 
caused  by  the  bean  beetle,  rust  and  fungus  to  the  later 
plantings  may  be  avoided.  In  the  northeastern  dry- 
farming districts  of  the  State,  the  beans  are  planted 
from  the  8th  of  May  to  about  the  15th  of  July.  In  some 
of  the  north  central  districts,  where  the  altitude  varies 
from  4,400  to  8,000  feet,  they  are  planted  from  the  15th 
of  April  to  about  the  middle  of  July. 

Irrigation. 

Beans  grown  under  irrigation  will  have  to  be  irri- 
gated to  produce  germination,  either  before  or  after  they 
are  planted.  In  practically  all  cases  an  additional  irriga- 
tion will  be  required  to  mature  the  crop,  and  occasionally 
even  two  or  three  irrigations ; depending  on  whether  it  is 
a dry  or  rainy  season,  and  to  some  extent,  upon  the  soil 
in  which  they  are  planted.  As  has  already  been  stated, 
when  the  beans  are  irrigated  up,  it  will  usually  be  neces- 
sary to  irrigate  more  frequently  than  when  they  have 
been  planted  according  to  the  wet  method. 

The  irrigation  of  the  fields  may  be  given  in  plats  or 
furrows ; the  better  plan  is  to  cultivate  first,  setting  the 
shovels  of  the  cultivator  so  as  to  ridge  the  rows  a little, 
thus  leaving  a furrow  between  the  rows  and  running  the 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


17 


water  down  through  these  furrows.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  apply  large  quantities  of  water;  in  fact,  oftentimes  a 
large  amount  of  water  at  an  irrigation  may  be  detrimental 
to  the  plant. 


FIG.  6. — Irrigating  New  Mexico  Pinto  Ccans  Planned  by  the  Native 
Method. 


Depth  of  Planting. 

The  matter  of  the  germination  of  the  seed  is  con- 
sidered of  great  importance  and  of  first  consideration 
with  all  agricultural  crops.  Even  the  bean,  with  its  great 
vitality,  if  not  properly  planted  may  give  a poor  germina- 
tion. The  question  of  the  best  methods  to  be  used  in 
growing  beans  must  be  considered.  The  Experiment  Sta- 
tion has  carried  on  investigations  along  the  line  of  ascer- 
taining at  what  depths  under  the  different  methods  of 
growing  beans  the  best  germination  may  be  had.  In  a 
general  way,  there  are  two  methods  of  growing  beans, 
as  considered  from  the  soil  moisture  factor.  They  are 
either  planted  in  moist  soil  or  in  dry  soil.  If  planted  in 
dry  soil,  under  irrigation  they  must  be  irrigated  up.  Un- 
der dry-farming  conditions  if  there  is  not  enough  moist- 
ure in  the  soil,  they  must  depend  upon  subsequent  rain 
to  bring  them  up.  If  planted  in  moist  soil  and  if  every- 


18 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


Summary 

sajnimj 

inoL 

193 

64 

51 

49 

70 

93 

82 

95 

307 

197  ' 

127 

: 85 

92 

93 

184 

11 

ss 

193 

175 

55 

74 

78 

uotibuiuijoo 

mox 

gSislgliS”llllSSIll^g|811llsgs 

8iBUTRIJ0£)  OJ 
, P8IIBJ  *0M 

1 

P0JBUIUI 
-J90  -OM 

30 

162 

188 

187 

181 

155 

155 

158 

97 

43 

59 

134 

190 

194 

187 

132 

143 

168 

. 75 

65 

27 

50 

179 

168 

181 

123 

162 

1 

P01UBH 

SUB8g 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 

0jBuimj09  oi 

P9IIBJ  'OM 

§5Sg§SSSgJ5S'ggSS^SSSg|S|§SSS9gfeS53g 

1 

P91BUIUI 
-J09  ‘OM 

157 

154 

141 

144 

129 

132 

113 

127 

61 

30 

124 

119 

105 

91 

100 

64 

62 

44 

1 

160 

155 

\n 

121 

83 

86 

68 

40 

34 

P91UBIR 

SUBOg 

I 

1 

S0UOUI 

ip81UBId  md9Q 

IIOS  Aj<3  JO 
10A\  UI  P91UEH 

SSSSiS^bbbbSSSSSbbbbb^^Sbbbbb 

^^^QQCQQ^^^QOCaa^^^QCCCQ 

•om  m.oh 

VARIETY 

Colleg-e  Yellow  . . . 

B‘7°  

N.  M.  Pinto 

TABLE  2— (Continued). 


2STEW  MEXICO  BEANS, 


19 


Summary 

uoiiBuimaao 

0SBlU90J9d 

t^«OC?)eDOO^t^OO>iftOOOl^— <0  — OvCcD«0 

i>QOOOJ>iO*i50in<Nr^cOOOa)OOJ>OOiC<N-rH 

sajniiBd 

Ifcioi 

oi«o^Ha3iftv^LOoov^,coi>ccv«t,foo50cocooo 

ooioi>osioiXNiooc^<Ni>.'^i>T-^cor^oo^H 
TH^T<T<ffi«T-  T->  -T*  T-  CN  SO 

UOI1BUTOIJ0O 

IB101 

vj*ir3  0o>T»io«5irt(N«ot^eo<j'*toJ>  — or'-i>e* 
c.?!-r/j«omj)THu;rtomoOcoinoO!© 

C*  CO  CO  G*  G*  G<  G<  G<  -rH  G^COCOCOC^G^GJG) 

1915 

01BUIUIJ0O  01 
P9IIBd  ‘ON 

00G505Vj<^l>^Ci'rHC5^OCis^C0^L0l>V}l^H 

o(NO)^THOioii:(NhC5^  co  co  c*  io  o ^ i> 

paiBuim 
-jay  'ON 

Oth^OCOMM^OthO^-hOMWlOCOOOS 

CO^hi.OOOCO^yf^G'IOiOOOOO^COiO^ 

P91UBTd 

SUB0g 

oooooooooooooooooooo 
= ~ - ooooooooooooooooo 
©*  g*  g*  g*  g*  g<  g<  g*  g*  g<  g«  g^  g.*  g*  g<  Gt  g*  g*  ot  g< 

1914 

01EUIUIJ0O  01 
P9IIEJ  'ON 

(»O-i>J)00NOt'lSOr<OOO(NK!!0  05h 
■<-W'T>0<'!l'OOOi'<C'?'(?»MC<5^00int'OMV? 

i 

P01EUTUI 
-J0Q  'ON 

^^05C0  000)C0M<C0l0thC55^OOC0lC^t-W 
OlOCOCOCO^^GlOCOCO^^^vfOffJO^^CO 

POlUBId 

suroy 

oooooooooooooooooooo 

coqoogoooooooooooogocccooococooooooococo 

saqoui 
JpaiUBid  iiidod 

><-*(Neovj<io^-i(Ncpv<j<»o^.(G)cov7<»rs^cNCO*<n»n 

ITOS  JC 

19 AV  ui  pajuru 

Wet 
Wet 
Wet 
Wet 
Wet 
Dry 
Dry 
• Dry 

Dry 

Dry 

Wet 

Wet 

Wet 

Wet 

Wet 

Dry 

Dry 

Dry 

Dry 

Dry 

•on  Avoy 

^OCOvfLOcDhCOOO^OW^OOhOOOO 

VARIETY 

California  Pink  — 

Tepary  

20 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


thing  is  favorable,  germination  will  take  place  in  about 
eight  to  ten  days. 

In  order  to  have  sufficient  moisture  in  the  soil,  under 
irrigation  it  will  be  necessary  to  irrigate  the  land  a few 
days  before,  or  after  planting.  Under  dry-farming  con- 
ditions, the  winter  and  spring  moisture  will  have  to  be 
conserved,  or  it  may  be  necessary  to  wait  for  summer 
rains.  At  the  Station,  as  a rule,  the  best  germination 
was  obtained  from  planting  in  moist  soil.  The  poorest 
germination  was  obtained  from  planting  in  dry  soil  and 
irrigating  the  beans  up. 


FIG.  7.— Result  of 
Planting  Too  Deep; 
the  Plant  Cannot  Get 
Through  the  Soil. 


A glance  at  table  2 will  bring  this 
point  out  quite  clearly.  In  these  ex- 
periments the  plantings  were  made  1, 
2,  3,  4 and  5 inches  in  depth  in  the 
moist  and  dry  soil.  Another  feature 
that  is  shown  by  this  table  is  that  the 
best  germination  was  obtained  in  the 
moist  soil  from  the  3-  and  4-inch 
depths,  though  fairly  satisfactory 
germination  was  obtained  from  the 
5-incli,  and  in  some  cases  from  the  2- 
inch  depth.  The  1-inch  depth  in  al- 
most every  case  gave  a very  poor  ger- 
mination. This  seems  to  be  explained 
by  the  fact  that  the  surface  soil  dried 
very  quickly  after  the  seed  was  plant- 
ed. In  the  case  of  the  dry  soil  it  is 
noticed  that,  as  a rule,  with  all  of  the 
varieties  tested,  the  best  germination 
was  obtained  from  the  1,  2,  or  3 inch 
depth;  while  the  4 and  5 inch  depths 
gave,  usually,  very  poor  germination. 

This  brings  out  the  point  that  if  the 
beans  are  to  be  irrigated  up  they 
should  not  be  planted  deeper  than  3 
inches,  preferably  1 or  2 inches.  On 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


21 


the  other  hand,  if  they  are  planted  in  moist  soil  it  would 
be  better  to  plant  them  3 to  4,  or  possibly  5,  inches  in 
depth. 

Cultivation. 

The  cultivation  of  the  bean  is  comparatively  simple  ; 
it  consists  principally  of  tillage  by  means  of  a cultivator, 
keeping  a soil  mulch  as  much  as  possible;  and  on  lands 
that  are  weedy,  hoeing  the  weeds  from  between  the  plants 
in  the  rows.  Under  irrigation,  these  operations  may  be 
a little  more  expensive  than  under  dry  farming,  and  in 
addition,  from  one  to  three  irrigations  are  required  to 
mature  the  crop.  Under  dry  farming,  there  is  very  little 
hand  work  done,  for  the  reason  that  there  are  compara- 
tively few  weeds.  The  number  of  cultivations  will  vary 
somewhat,  according  to  the  methods  used  in  planting  and 
with  different  soils  and  different  altitudes ; though  as  a 
general  rule,  it  will  be  advisable  to  cultivate  just  as  often 
as  the  operation  will  be  of  any  material  benefit  to  the 
crop.  In  practice,  however,  from  one  to  four  cultivations 
are  given. 

Some  growers  go  over  the  ground  with  a harrow 
from  one  to  four  times  after  the  beans  have  been  planted. 
In  following  this  practice,  care  should  be  had  that  the 
harrowing  of  the  land  is  not  delayed  too  long  after  the 
planting;  otherwise  the  harrow  teeth  or  spikes  may  de- 
stroy many  of  the  beans  that  are  coming  up.  If  the  soil 
is  in  good  moisture  condition  and  is  quite  warm,  beans 
usually  germinate  in  about  eight  to  ten  days ; consequent- 
ly, if  the  harrow  is  to  be  used  the  harrowing  should  be 
done  very  shortly  after  the  bgans  are  planted. 

The  five-shovel,  one-horse  cultivator  is  being  used 
to  advantage ; particularly  in  the  smaller  fields.  In  some 
of  the  dry-farming  districts,  as  well  as  in  the  irrigated 
districts,  many  of  the  native  farmers  do  very  little  culti- 
vating by  machinery.  The  hoe  is  the  tool  that  is  most 
used ; however,  on  a large  scale  this  kind  of  work  would 


22 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


not  be  economical.  The  use  of  machinery  for  the  culti- 
vation of  the  bean  should  be  encouraged  as  much  as  pos- 
sible. 


1 2 

FIG.  8. — 1,  Irrigated  Up.  Notice  the  large  number  of  weeds  that  came 
up  with  the  beans.  2,  Planted  in  Moist  Soil,  after  Irrigation.  Much 
freer  from  weeds.  A strip  of  alkali  soil  crosses  the  plats  near  the 
■center,  the  plants  being  much  smaller  where  there  is  any  considerable 
amount  of  the  alkali. 

Harvesting. 

Beans  may  be  harvested  by  hand  pulling,  by  plowing 
them,  or  with  a bean  harvester.  The  bean  harvester  is 
the  best  and  most  economical  way  of  harvesting,  and  is 
being  used  quite  extensively  in  a number  of  the  north- 
eastern bean  growing  districts,  though  a large  percentage 
of  the  crop  is  still  being  pulled  by  hand.  When  a har- 
vester is  used,  the  beans  are  usually  gathered  in  piles  or 
rows  in' the  field;  but  when  pulled  by  hand  they  are  gen- 
erally placed  in  small  piles.  The  harvesting  should  be 
done  when  the  majority  of  the  pods  are  ripe.  Some- 
times, because  of  late  rains  or  late  irrigation,  the  plant 
continues  to  grow  and  to  produce  beans.  In  such  cases 
the  beans  ripen  somewhat  irregularly,  and  if  one  waits 
for  the  last  pods  to  ripen,  it  will  be  found  that  the  greater 
part  of  the  crop  is  too  ripe  and  many  of  the  beans  are 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


23 


likely  to  shatter.  The  native  farmers  follow  the  practice 
of  pulling  the  bean  plants  during  the  earlier  part  of  the 
day,  while  they  are  still  moist  with  dew,  and  in  this  way 
prevent  the  shattering  of  the  pods. 

Threshing. 

As  this  crop  in  New  Mexico  has  never  been,  until 
very  recently,  of  much  importance  commercially,  in  most 
cases  the  threshing  has  been  done  by  the  old  method; 
which  consists  of  flailing  the  beans  out  or  trampling 
them  out  with  horses,  mules,  or  even  goats,  and  then  de- 
pending on  the  wind  to  clean  them.  However,  in  more 
recent  years  the  bean  thresher  is  finding  its  way  into 
the  bean  fields  of  New  Mexico,  and  no  doubt  in  a very 
short  time  it  will  replace  the  old  method  almost  entirely. 
In  the  old  method,  the  threshing  floor  was  an  important 
factor.  This  usually  consisted  of  a dry,  hard  portion  of 
the  field,  swept  very  clean,  where  the  beans  were  piled 
for  threshing.  (See  Fig.  13.) 


FIG.  9. — Unloading  on  the  Floor  of  a Threshing  Yard  New  Mexico 


Pinto  Beans  Raised  under  Dry-farming  Conditions. 

Yields. 

The  yield  varies  considerably,  as  would  naturally  be 
expected,  on  account  of  the  variation  in  the  amount  of 


24 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


moisture,  amount  of  seed  planted  to  the  acre,  soil,  and 
variety.  At  the  Experiment  Station,  under  irrigation, 
it  has  been  found  that  the  yield  may  vary  from  200  to 
2,000  pounds  to  the  acre;  while  under  dry-farming  con- 
ditions, occasionally  farmers  average  from  800  to  1,200 
pounds,  though  the  average  yield  per  acre  is  usually  400 
to  500  pounds. 

TESTS. 

While  the  bean  has  been  grown  for  many  years  by 
the  native  farmers,  very  few  actual  data  derived  from 
investigations  have  been  available.  In  order  to  be  able 
to  furnish  farmers  with  such  data,  the  Experiment  Sta- 
tion has  been  carrying  on  bean  experiments  since  1912. 
In  the  spring  of  1912,  four  acres  of  sandy  to  loamy  soil 
were  used  in  experiments  with  the  Bayo  and  Pinto  varie- 
ties. These  four  acres  were  planted  at  different  dates, 
to  ascertain  what  effect  different  times  of  planting  might 
have  upon  the  yield  and  maturity  of  the  crop.  Acre  I 
was  planted  on  May  13,  Acre  II  on  May  24,  Acre  III  on 
June  3,  and  Acre  IY  on  June  13.  Each  of  these  acres 
was  divided  into  eight  %-acre  divisions.  By  referring 
to  Table  3 it  will  be  noticed  that  plats  1,  2,  3,  and  8 in 
all  of  the  four  acres  were  planted  to  the  Bayo  bean. 
Plats  4,  5,  6,  and  7 were  planted  to  the  New  Mexico  Pinto. 
In  carrying  out  these  experiments  it  was  also  arranged 
to  try  the  different  methods  of  growing  beans,  and  plats 
1,  2,  5,  and  6 were  planted  according  to  the  native,  or 
wet,  method,  while  plats  7 and  8 were  planted  according 
to  the  new,  or  dry,  method.  Plats  3 and  4 were  broad- 
cast and  plowed  under. 

Plats  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  and  6 of  Acre  I were  irrigated  on 
May  8.  The  land  was  dry  enough  so  that  the  beans  could 
be  plowed  in  on  May  13.  Plats  7 and  8 were  planted  on 
the  same  date  and  were  flooded  to  produce  germination 
on  May  15.  In  planting  plats  7 and  8 according  to  the 
dry  method,  after  the  land  had  been  thoroughly  plowed 


SHOWING  YIELDS  AND  DATES  OF  HARVESTING  UNDER  DIFFERENT  DATES  OF  PLANTING,  DIFFERENT 
METHODS  OF  PLANTING,  AND  DIFFERENT  AMOUNTS  OF  SEED  PER  ACRE. 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


25 


Acre  IV.  Planted 
June  13 

•sqi  i9Joy  J9d 
PI9IA  pajnduioo 

880 

1112 

728 

112 

640 

480 

1120 

304 

Ssqi  :pi9]A 

OO-rH^OOOOO 

T-COC^'THOOO^CO 

C* 

o 

P91S9AJBH 

ops  a 

9-6 

9-6 

9-b 

9-6 

9-6 

9-6 

9-6 

9-6 

•sqi  :P91UBH 
P99S  JO  lunouiv 

^ ^ ^ ^ 
CO^^CO^COlOCO 

Acre  III.  Planted  ! 
June  3 

•sqi  '■  9J9V  Jod 
PI9IA  P9induioo 

1192 

1512 

984 

280 

1216 

1248 

1040 

336 

•sqi  :pioiA 

149 

189 

123 

35 

I 152 

156 

130 

42 

o 

o 

P91S9AJBH 

9JT?a 

05  050C505050505 

! %0S 
l 

•sai  :p9iuBW 
P99S  jo  lunouiv 

Acre  II.  Planted 
May  24 

•sqi  ‘ 9J9V  Jad 
PI9IA  painduioo 

544 

1120 

704 

600 

| 656 
592 

520 

416 

•sqi  iPIOTA 

oo  oaoiO  G^^ibo* 

o vr  oo  i>  oo  *>  co  ■ 

'O 

PdtS9AJI?H 

9i«a 

8-26 

8-26 

8-26 

8-26 

8-26 

8-26 

8-26 

8-26 

•sqi  :p91UT?H 
P99S  JO  pinornv 

^ ^ ^ 

O'*  v}<  v}<  CN  (N  CO  (N 

g 

Acre  i.  Planted 
May  13 

•sqi  • 9J0V  Jad 
PI9TA  P9induioo 

760  | 

1200  | 

672  | 

560 

776  | 

680  | 

880  | 

480 

•sqi  :pi9iA 

O5iO00t^O500-<-«<£> 

£ 

pojsoA  jrg  1 

9P3(Ij 

ooobobooooobooob 

•soi  ipoiueul 

P99S  jo  pinouiy 

^ ;$»  a*  ^ 

ecioooc^coc^vucj 

y-ilz 

i 

ITOS  Aj(i  jo! 
18AY  UI  paiueidj 

Wet  | 

Wet  | 

Wet  | 

1 

Dry  1 

Wet  | 

Wet 

Wet 

Dry 

— 

sgqoui  Hardy! 

ooucisia 

12x24 

. 6x24 

12x24 

1 

12x24 

6x24 

12x24  | 

ISBopeojg 
JO  savou  ui 

9job  leojy 

•OM  Pdcl 

~ e«  « oo-^ 

Variety 

Bayo  

Bayo  

Bayo  

Bayo  1 

N.  M.  Pinto. 

N.  M.  Pinto. 

N.  M.  Pinto. 

N.  M.  Pinto. 

i 

Per  acre  ..j 

26 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


and  leveled,  furrows  3 to  5 inches  in  depth  were  made 
with  a small  plow  and  the  seed  dropped  in  the  bottoms 
of  them.  The  furrows  were  covered  by  running  the  Acme 
harrow  over  them. 

The  beans  in  plats  2 and  6 were  dropped  closer  to- 
gether in  the  furrow  and  it  took  from  4 to  5%  pounds  to 
the  plat.  All  the  beans  were  harvested  from  August  9th 
to  12th.  Plats  2 and  6 produced  considerably  more  than 
any  of  the  others.  Plat  2 produced  at  the  rate  of  1200 
pounds  to  the  acre. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  plats  7 and  8,  planted  in  the 
dry  soil,  gave  the  smallest  crop. 

The  eight  plats  in  Acre  II  were  planted  the  same  as 
those  in  Acre  I.  Plats  1,  2,  5,  and  6 were  plowed  in  accord- 
ing to  the  native  method,  while  7 and  8 were  planted  in 
the  dry  soil,  and  3 and  4 were  broadcast  and  plowed 
under.  All  of  the  plats  were  harvested  on  the  26th  of 
August.  The  yield  of  the  plats  in  this  acre  was  a little 
less  than  that  from  the  first  acre.  This  was  due,  to  some 
degree,  to  the  fact  that  when  the  six  wet  plats  were  plant- 
ed the  soil  had  dried  a little  too  much  to  produce  the 
best  germination  possible.  The  plats  were  irrigated  on 
May  20,  and  the  beans  were  plowed  under  May  24.  Plats 
7 and  8 were  irrigated  on  May  27.  Aside  from  the  soil 
having  been  a little  too  dry  in  the  wet  plats  when  the 
seed  was  planted,  a heavy  wind  shortly  after  germination 
killed  many  of  the  plants.  There  was  also  a streak  of 
alkali  soil  running  through  this  strip,  reducing  the  ger- 
mination. (See  Figure  8.) 

Plats  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  and  6 in  Acre  III  were  irrigated 
May  29  and  the  beans  plowed  in  June  3.  Plats  7 and  8 
were  irrigated  on  June  6.  The  yield  from  all  of  the  wet 
plats  in  this  acre  was  quite  good,  while  that  from  plats 
7 and  8 was  very  small.  The  wet  plats  in  Acre  IV  were 
irrigated  on  June  10,  and  the  beans  planted  on  June  13. 
Plats  7 and  8 were  irrigated  on  June  19.  It  will  be  no- 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


27 


ticed  that  the  yield  from  this  acre  was  just  a little  higher 
than  that  produced  from  Acre  II,  though  plats  7 and  8 
gave  the  lowest  yields. 

The  yield  results  in  this  table  show  that  the  wet  plats 
planted  6 x 24  inches  gave,  in  all  cases  but  one,  the  largest 
yield;  while  in  the  majority  of  cases  the  wet  plats  planted 
12  x 24  inches  gave  a larger  yield  than  the  dry  plats 
planted  at  the  same  distance.  All  of  these  plats  were 
more  or  less  affected  by  alkali  salts,  which  tended  to 
reduce  the  yield  somewhat. 

On  the  20th  of  July  the  Bayo,  New  Mexico  Pinto  and 
Ancient  Yellow  were  planted,  to  see  how  late  beans 
could  be  planted  and  yet  mature.  These  were  harvested 
on  October  8.  The  beans  were  not  as  plump  nor  as  large 
as  those  from  earlier  plantings.  During  August  and  Sep- 
tember there  was  considerable  rain  and  the  mildew  af- 
fected many  of  the  plants. 

The  beans  tried  in  1916  were  planted  on  a piece  of 
land  that  had  grown  a crop  of  corn  in  1915.  The  corn 
received  very  little  care  and  the  middles  grew  up  in 
weeds  and  grass.  The  soil,  however,  was  of  a good  bean 
type.  After  the  corn  was  harvested  in  the  fall  of  1915> 
the  corn  stalks  were  broken  down,  raked,  and  burned. 
On  the  last  of  April  .97  inch  of  rain  fell  and  this  mois- 
tened the  soil  considerably.  However,  by  the  time  the 
plats  were  laid  off  and  prepared  for  planting,  most  of  the 
moisture  had  evaporated.  On  May  11,  plats  8 and  10 
(see  Table  4)  were  irrigated,  to  add  moisture  to  the  soil 
for  germination  of  the  seed.  In  five  days  the  soil  had 
dried  enough  so  that  it  could  be  properly  plowed.  May 
17  plats  8 and  10  were  planted  according  to  the  native 
or  wet  method,  to  the  Bayo  and  New  Mexico  Pinto  beans, 
respectively.  The  beans  were  plowed  under  to  a depth  of 
from  3 to  5 inches.  The  soil  had  dried  a little  too  much 
in  spots  and  the  germination  in  these  dry  spots  was  not 
very  satisfactory.  The  beans  were  planted  in  furrows, 
30  inches  apart  by  4 to  8 inches  in  the  row. 


28 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


On  April  28  plats  1,  4,  7,  and  9 were  plowed,  as  a 
good  many  weeds  were  coming  up.  On  May  18  the  beans 
were  planted  2 to  3 inches  deep  in  these  plats,  with  a 
garden  hand  drill  (Planet  Junior),  in  rows  30  inches 
apart  and  about  6 inches  in  the  row.  The  soil  was  very 
dry  and  on  May  23  the  plats  were  flooded  to  produce 
germination.  On  June  9 plats  2,  3,  5,  and  6 were  irrigated 
to  add  moisture  to  the  soil  for  germination.  On  June 
13  plats  2 and  5 were  planted  according  to  the  wet  method 
and  the  beans  were  plowed  in  4 inches  deep.  Plats  3 and 
6 were  planted  on  the  same  date  by  drilling  the  beans 
in  the  moist  soil  about  2 to  3 inches  in  depth.  Before 
drilling  the  beans  an  Acme  harrow  was  run  over  the  irri- 
gated soil  to  destroy  the  little  weeds  that  had  started  to 
germinate,  and  to  make  a mulch  over  the  field. 

On  June  14  plat  11  was  irrigated  and  the  New  Mex- 
ico Pinto  beans  were  plowed  in  on  the  17th.  The  seed 
was  covered  about  4 inches  deep.  The  soil  in  plats  2,  3, 
5,  6,  and  11  was  in  excellent  moisture  condition  at  the 
time  of  planting  the  seed  and  the  germination  was  good. 
The  following  table  will  give  the  data  on  the  time  and 
method  of  planting,  amount  of  seed  used  per  plat,  actual 
yield  per  plat  and  computed  yield  per  acre.  (Page  29.) 

On  May  18,  the  next  day  after  plats  8 and  10  were 
planted,  an  Acme  harrow  was  run  over  the  plowed  soil 
to  level  and  mulch  it.  The  same  operation  was  per- 
formed in  the  cases  of  plats  2,  5 and  11  the  next  day  after 
planting  them. 

The  beans  in  plats  8 and  10  were  up  by  the  27th  of 
May,  ten  days  after  planting,  while  those  in  plats  1,  4,  7, 
and  9 were  coming  up  by  June  1,  though  the  germination 
in  plats  7 and  9 was  noticeably  slower. 

On  June  20  the  beans  in  plats  2,  3,  5,  and  6 were 
coming  up  nicely,  although  5 and  6 were  about  a day 
ahead  of  2 and  3.  At  this  time  no  material  difference 


TABLE  4.— SHOWING  YIELDS  AND  DATES  OF  HARVESTING  UNDER  DIFFERENT  METHODS  AND  DATES  OF  PLANTING. 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


29 


Yield  in  Pounds 

Computed 

per  Acre 

920 

1333 

952 

1707 

2032 

1825 

897 

1048 

960 

968 

1111 

Actual 

T-  TH  T-  T«  TH  rl 

Date 

Harvested 

Aug.  26 

Sept.  1 

Sept.  1 

Sept.  1 

Sept.  6 

Sept.  6 

Aug.  29 

Aug.  29 

Sept.  1 

Sept.  1 

Sept.  9 

Beans 

Planted; 

lbs. 

CO-rH-rHCO^-rHCOCOCO^r-H 

Date 

Planted 

May  18 

June  13 

June  13 

May  18 

June  13 

June  13 

May  18 

May  17 

May  18 

May  17 

June  17 

Planted 
in  Wet 
or  Dry 

Soil 

Dry 

| Wet 

Wet 

Dry 

Wet 

| Wet 

Dry 

Wet 

Dry 

Wet 

Wet 

Method  of 
Planting 

Drilled 

Plowed  in 

Drilled 

Drilled 

Plowed  in 

Drilled 

Drilled 

Plowed  in 

Drilled 

Plowed  in 

Plowed  in 

Area; 

acre 

1 .* 
.063 

.063 

.126 

.003 

.063 

.126 

.126 

.126 

.063 

.063 

Number 
of  Plat 

-r-cC*CO^lft!Oi>00050-*-H 

VARIETY 

College  Yellow  . J 

Tepary  

Bayo  

N.  M.  Pinto 

30 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


was  observed  in  the  stand  between  the  plats  plowed  un- 
der and  those  drilled  after  irrigation. 

On  June  22,  the  vines  in  plats  1,  4,  7,  and  9 were 
needing  water  and  were  irrigated  the  second  time.  They 
were  again  irrigated  on  August  2.  These  plats,  which 
were  planted  in  the  dry  soil,  were  irrigated  three  times  ; 
once  to  produce  germination  of  the  seed  and  twice  to 
mature  the  crop.  Plats  8 and  10,  which  were  planted 
according  to  the  wet  method,  were  irrigated  but  once,  on 
August  1,  to  mature  the  crop.  The  same  thing  was  true 
of  plats  2,  3,  5,  6,  and  11,  which  were  irrigated  once,  on 
August  2,  to  mature  the  crop. 

The  Ancient  Yellow  in  plat  1 started  to  bloom  July 
5 and  by  the  18th  there  were  many  pods  large  enough 
to  gather  as  green  beans.  The  Tepary,  in  plat  5,  and  the 
Bayo  in  plats  7 and  8,  were  blooming  by  July  6,  and 
these  had  pods  large  enough  to  pick  by  the  19th;  while 
the  New  Mexico  Pinto  in  plats  9 and  10  was  starting  to 
bloom  by  July  8,  and  the  pods  were  large  enough  to 
pick  by  the  22nd.  On  July  24  the  Ancient  Yellow  in  plats 
2 and  3 were  starting  to  bloom  and  by  August  8 it  had 
pods  large  enough  to  pick.  The  Tepary  in  plats  5 and  6 
did  not  start  to  bloom  until  July  26  and  the  beans  were 
large  enough  to  pick  by  August  8.  The  New  Mexico 
Pinto  in  plat  11  was  blooming  by  July  29  and  by  the 
11th  of  August  it  had  pods  large  enough  to  pick.  On 
the  whole,  the  Ancient  Yellow  was  a little  earlier  than 
the  other  varieties.  It  took  from  11  to  15  days  for  the 
pods  to  become  large  enough  for  use  as  green  beans. 

The  method  of  planting  had  no  material  effect  on 
the  blooming  of  the  plants,  the  maturing  of  the  pods,  or 
the  ripening  of  the  crop,  but  it  did  have  on  the  yield. 

By  referring  to  the  columns  on  actual  and  estimated 
yields,  given  in  the  table,  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  plats 
planted  according  to  the  native  or  wet  method  gave  the 
largest  crop,  while  the  plats  drilled  in  the  moist  soil  gave 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


31 


also  a better  yield  than  the  plats  in  which  the  beans  were 
planted  in  the  dry  soil  and  irrigated  to  produce  germina- 
tion. It  was  also  noticed  that,  on  the  whole,  the  stand 
was  not  quite  as  good  on  the  plats  planted  in  the  dry  soil 
and  then  irrigated  up.  These  plats  also  required  more 
irrigation,  cultivation  and  hoeings,  because  more  weeds 
came  up  in  the  middles  than  was  the  case  with  the  plats 
in  which  the  beans  were  plowed  under  after  irrigation. 
The  plats  in  which  the  beans  were  drilled  nf  the  moist 
soil  had  more  weeds  than  those  in  which  the  seed  was 
plowed  under,  though  they  required  no  more  irrigation. 

The  results  of  these  experiments  indicate  that  the 
best  way  to  plant  beans  under  irrigation  is  to  irrigate 
the  land  first  and  either  plow  them  in  or  drill  them  in 
the  moist  soil.  Planting  in  the  dry  soil  and  irrigating 
the  beans  up  tends  to  pack  the  soil  and  thus  prevent  the 
best  germination  possible,  encourages  weeds  to  come  up 
immediately,  and  requires  more  frequent  subsequent  irri- 
gations, hoeings  and  cultivations.  If  the  beans  are 
planted  in  the  dry  soil  and  have  to  be  irrigated  up,  great 
care  should  be  taken  not  to  plant  them  too  deeply ; other- 
wise, many  of  them  will  not  be  able  to  break  through  the 
crust  formed  by  the  flooding  of  the  land.  If  they  are  to 
be  irrigated  up,  the  best  germination  can  be  had  when 
the  planting  is  done  from  1 to  3 inches  in  depth.  Plant- 
ing deeper  than  this  will  reduce  the  stand  very  ma- 
terially. 

The  young  bean  plant  cannot  come  through  a hard 
soil  very  easily,  if  it  is  planted  too  deeply.  It  comes  up 
in  a doubled-up  shape,  as  is  shown  in  Figure  10.  Even 
if  the  seed  is  not  buried  too  deeply,  if  the  soil  is  hard, 
the  cotyledons  may  occasionally  break  off  and  remain 
below  the  surface.  If  the  plant  does  this  it  is  not  very 
likely  that  it  will  grow. 

If  the  ground  has  been  irrigated  to  get  it  moistened 
for  germination  of  the  seed,  the  beans  can  be  covered 


32 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


FIG.  10. — Illustrating  Habit  of  Germination.  1,  Breaking  through  the  hard  soil.  2,  Just  through  the  soil. 
3,  Plant  well  started.  4,  A plant  that  has  been  seriously  injured  by  the  baking  of  the  surface  soil. 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


33 


3 to  4,  or  even  5,  inches  deep,  if  planted  according  to  the 
native  or  wet  method ; and  2 to  3 inches  if  they  are  drilled 
in.  It  is  not  advisable  to  cover  them  too  shallow,  as  the 
top  soil  soon  loses  its  moisture,  and  the  seed  may  not 
even  germinate,  or  if  they  do  the  plants  will  soon  begin 
to  suffer  for  the  lack  of  water.  The  deeper  they  are,  the 
better,  provided  they  can  come  through  the  soil.  The 
plants  will  develop  a good  deep  root  system  and  will 
require  less  irrigation  and  less  moisture,  either  under 
irrigation  or  dry  farming. 

Approximate  Cost  of  Growing  Beans  per  Acre  by  the  Wet  Method. 


Preparing  the  land  for  irrigation  $ .40 

Irrigating  before  planting  15 

Plowing  at  planting  2.00 

Dropping  seed  70 

Dragging  land  after  plowing  20 

One  cultivation 50 

One  hoeing 1.65 

One  irrigation  20 

Pulling  beans  by  hand 1.80 


Total $7.60 


In  this  estimate  the  cost  of  the  seed,  the  threshingr 
the  sacking,  and  grading  of  the  crop  are  not  included. 
In  case  an  extra  cultivation,  hoeing  or  irrigation  is  given 
the  field,  it  will  add  that  much  to  the  cost  of  production. 

In  planting  according  to  the  dry  method  the  cost  of 
preparing  the  land  for  irrigation,  plowing,  irrigating, 
planting  the  seed,  and  pulling  the  beans  by  hand  will  be 
about  the  same  as  with  the  wet  method.  The  cost  of 
hoeing,  cultivations,  and  the  irrigating  of  the  field  will 
be  greater. 

Under  dry  farming  conditions,  where  the  bean  grow- 
er will  not  have  to  prepare  his  land  for  irrigation  or 
irrigate  it  for  germination  of  the  seed,  and  where  there  is 
no  subsequent  irrigation  for  the  crop  and  very  little 
hoeing,  the  cost  of  production  is,  no  doubt,  less  than 
under  irrigation. 


34 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


Seed  Selection. 

The  matter  of  seed  selection  cannot  be  too  strongly 
emphasized.  Good  seed  is  one  of  the  most  important 
factors  in  the  production  of  a good,  profitable  crop.  New 
Mexico  farmers,  as  a rule,  have  not  given  this  feature 
as  much  consideration  as  it  deserves,  and  until  more 
attention  is  devoted  to  this  point,  mixed  and  inferior 
crops  may  be  expected.  At  this  time,  when  the  farmers 
have  so  much  competition  on  the  market,  the  question 
of  seed  selection  is  of  still  greater  importance,  in  order 
to  produce  strictly  pure  products  of  standard  varieties. 
The  New  Mexico  farmer  is  not  exempt  from  the  necessity 
of  practicing  seed  selection.  * This  is  not  only  true  of  all 
agricultural  crops,  but  of  the  bean  crop  as  well. 

The  New  Mexico  Pinto  bean,  which  is  so  well  adapted 
to  the  climatic  and  soil  conditions  of  the  State,  has  been 
grown  for  so  many  years  under  dry  farming  and  under 
irrigation  without  the  proper  selection  of  seed,  that  there 


FIG.  11. — Selecting  New  Mexico  Pinto  Bean  Seed  for  Planting. 


are  found  rather  marked  differences  as  regards  size  and 
color  markings.  The  bean  growers , therefore,  should 
give  considerable  attention  to  the  elimination  of  varia- 
tions which  do  not  come  up  to  the  best  standard  of  the 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


35 


Pinto  bean.  The  planting  of  this  bean  without  paying 
any  attention  to  the  careful  selection  of  the  seed  should 
be  discouraged.  In  all  cases  good  plump  beans  of  uni- 
form size  and  color  of  the  type  should  be  selected  and 
planted. 

Nutritive  Value. 

The  bean  is  a leguminous  plant  and  is,  therefore, 
quite  rich  in  protein.  The  native  varieties— Bayo,  An- 
cient Yellow,  and  New  Mexico  Pinto— are  rich  in  proteid, 
cook  easily,  and  are  very  palatable.  The  Tepary  bean 
is  not  quite  as  rich  in  proteid,  does  not  cook  quite  as 
readily  as  the  native  varieties,  and  is  hardly  so  palatable. 
The  following  figures  show  the  percentages  of  proteid 
obtained  by  analyses  made  recently  by  Dr.  L.  A.  Higley 
of  the  Department  of  Chemistry:— 

Ancient  Yellow  21.88%  proteid 

New  Mexico  Pinto  21.88%  proteid 

Bayo  23.19%  proteid 

Tepary  19.69%  proteid 

Navy  21.44%  proteid 

Black  Eye  19.69%  proteid 

These  figures  are  on  the  wet  basis. 

Consumption. 

The  consumption  of  the  New  Mexico  beans  has  in- 
creased very  materially  during  the  past  two  or  three 
years.  While  this  is  true,  very  few,  if  any,  of  the  res- 
taurants and  hotels  have  beans  on  their  bills  of  fare.  If 
these  establishments  could  be  induced  to  use  more  of 
them,  putting  them  on  their  bills  of  fare,  the  consump- 
tion of  the  New  Mexico  beans  would  increase  consider- 
ably more. 

There  are  many  ways  of  cooking  the  native  beans. 
The  following  is  a good  method,  used  by  the  Spanish- 
Americans,  of  cocking  the  New  Mexico  Pinto  bean:— 

Take  1 pint  of  the  New  Mexico  Pinto  beans.  Wash 
clean.  Put  them  in  a graniteware  or  other  suitable  cook- 
ing vessel.  Pour  3 pints  of  boiling  water  over  them  and 
place  on  the  stove  to  cook.  Get  them  to  boiling  as  soon 


36 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


as  possible,  and  keep  boiling  until  done.  Do  not  let  the 
water  boil  below  the  surface  of  the  beans,  but  keep  it 
above  by  adding  hot  water  to  the  vessel  from  time  to 
time,  possibly  every  three-quarters  of  an  hour  to  an  hour, 
depending  on  the  heat.  If  the  water  boils  down  the  beans 
are  liable  to  burn.  Keep  the  vessel  covered  while  boiling, 
but  allow  escape  for  the  steam.  Never  add  cold  water 
to  the  vessel  while  the  beans  are  cooking.  Keep  up  a 
steady  heat  until  they  are  boiled  soft.  It  will  take  about 
two  and  a half  to  three  and  a fourth  hours  to  cook  them 
well;  the  older  the  beans  the  longer  it  will  take  them 
to  cook.  When  about  done,  add  the  necessary  amount 
of  salt. 

When  the  beans  are  done  they  may  be  served  imme- 
diately, or  they  can  be  partially  mashed  and  fried  in  a 
small  amount  of  lard,  the  lard  being  as  hot  as  possible 
before  the  beans  are  poured  into  it.  The  frying  makes 
them  more  palatable. 

PESTS. 

Perhaps  the  bean  beetle  is  the  most  common  pest 
that  the  bean  grower  has  to  fight,  though  some  trouble 
is  experienced  from  the  cutworms,  also  from  rust  and 
mildew.  Professor  Merrill  of  the  Biological  Department 
has  prepared  the  following  article  on  the  bean  pests 

“The  Bean  Lady-Bird,  or  Bean  Beetle,  as  it  is  commonly 
called,  is  the  most  important  insect  enemy  of  the  bean  in  New 
Mexico.  It  is  about  one-fourth  inch  in  length,  hemispherical  in 
shape,  orange  brown  in  color,  with  sixteen  black  spots  on  the 
wing  covers.  The  other  members  of  this  family  of  beetles  are 
beneficial  and  should  be  recognized  as  such. 

“The  adult  bean  beetles  hibernate,  emerging  late  in  spring 
and  laying  clusters  of  eggs  on  the  under  side  of  the  bean  leaf. 
Several  hundred,  eggs  may  be  laid  by  one  female.  In  a few  days 
the  yellow,  spiny  larvae  hatch  and  begin  to  eat  the  tissue  from 
the  under  side  of  the  leaf,  leaving  only  the*  white  skeleton  of  the 
leaf.  Most  of  the  damage  is  done  by  the  adult  beetles  in  eating 
holes  in  the  leaves. 

“Beans  planted  as  early  as  possible  in  the  season  usually 
mature  a crop  before  the  beetles  get  very  numerous.  Late  plant- 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


37 


ings  suffer  greatly  from  the  attacks  of  the  increased  numbers  in 
the  later  generations.  Early  planting  is  better,  also,  in  regard 
to  prevention  of  bean  rust. 

“Spraying  for  the  bean  beetle  may  be  practiced  successfully 
as  a preventive  measure.  Experiments  indicate  that  the  adults 
will  pass  sprayed  fields  and  lay  their  eggs  upon  fields  unsprayed. 
The  spraying,  then,  should  be  done  first  before  the  eggs  are  laid. 
The  farmer  will  have  to  decide  for  himself  the  exact  date.  A first 
spraying  is  not  effective  if  done  when  already  a full  brood  of  young 
are  hatched.  If  the  first  spray  is  put  on  at  the  time  suggested, 
usually  there  is  no  need  for  a second.  Care  should  be  taken  to 
spray  the  under  side  of  the  leaf,  for  there  the  eggs  are  laid  and 
there  the  young  hatch  and  begin  to  eat.  For  large  fields  a sprayer 
with  row  attachment  throwing  a fine  spray  should  be  used. 

“As  a spray,  use  powdered  arsenate  of  lead  at  the  rate  of  2 to 
2V2  pounds  to  50  gallons  of  water.  As  a partial  preventive  of  rust, 
at  a small  cost,  bordeaux  mixture  may  be  substituted  for  the 
water.” 

Cutworms. 

“Cutworms  are  the  naked,  greenish  or  dusky  larvae  of  a 
number  of  species  of  dusky-winged  moths  that  fly  at  night  for 
the  most  part.  In  the  spring  of  1914  there  was  a great  number  of 
one  species  of  moth  of  this  group  prevalent  very  generally  over 
New  Mexico. 

“The  usual  life  history  is  as  follows:  The  eggs  laid  .by  the 
moths  in  late  summer  hatch  into  small  caterpillars,  or  ‘cutworms,’ 
which  lie  concealed  just  beneath  the  surface  of  the  ground  near 
tender  parts  of  plants.  They  feed  mostly  at  night.  Later  cold 
weather  and  lack  of  food  necessitate  hibernation  in  the  soil  or 
under  rubbish,  weed  piles,  etc.  In  the  spring,  feeding  is  resumed 
again.  The  damage  is  more  noticeable  at  that  time  for  the  cut- 
worms are  fair  sized,  hungry,  and  vegetation  is  scarce.  After  a 
time  the  caterpillars  reach  their  full  size,  go  into  the  soil  to  pupate, 
and  later  emerge  as  moths  to  lay  more  eggs  for  later  generations. 
Alfalfa  fields  harbor  enormous  numbers  of  these  cutworms. 

“Control:  Many  moths  may  be  caught  at  night  by  placing  a 
light  above  a tub  of  water.  This  will  not  reduce  the  number  of 
cutworms  much,  as  the  females  do  not  fly  far  before  laying  the 
eggs.  It  will  reduce  the  nuisance  of  having  the  moths  in  such 
numbers  about  the  house.  Water  standing  6 or  8 hours  on  an 
irrigated  field  should  kill  many  of  the  cutworms  in  the  soil.  A 
reliable  remedy  is  the  poisoned  bait  made  as  follows:  Mix  1 pound 
of  Paris  green  with  25  pounds  of  dry  bran.  Add  2 or  3 quarts 
of  molasses  to  5 or  6 gallons  of  water  and  stir  the  mixture  thor- 


38 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


oughly  into  the  poisoned  bran.  Let  this  stand  for  several  hours' 
before  using.  In  infested  fields  scatter  broadcast,  in  the  evening, 
pieces  of  this  bait  the  size  of  two  or  three  fingers  together.  In 
gardens, ' strew  the  pieces  along  the  bases  of  the  plants  being  at- 
tacked. In  this  dry  climate  the  application  may  have  to  be 
repeated  to  give  best  results.” 

Rust  of  Beans. 

“This  fungous  disease  of  the  bean  is  marked,  first,  by  a ten- 
dency toward  yellowing  of  the  leaves  and,  later,  by  the  production 
of  spots  on  the  under  sides  of  the  leaves  yielding  the  dusty  red 
rust.  The  destruction  of  the  foliage  by  this  disease  is  apt  to  cause 
a too  early  maturing  of  the  beans  and  a consequent  loss  in  yield. 
The  rust  usually  appears  late  in  the  season  and  is  most  injurious 
if  the  season  be  moist. 

“The  old  leaves  and  vines  hold  the  fungus  over  from  one  year 
to  the  next.  Such  should  be  burned  after  the  crop  is  off,  so  as  to 
reduce  the  chances  for  infection  the  next  year. 

“Among  varieties  of  beans  there  is  difference  as  to  the  sus- 
ceptibility to  the  rust.  From  observations  the  New  Mexico  Pinto 
bean,  Tepary,  and  navy  beans  are  less  affected  by  the  rust  than 
most  others  grown  in  the  State. 

“Aside  from  trying  to  get  resistant  varieties,  control  of  the 
disease  is  mostly  along  preventive,  lines.  Early  planting  tends  ta 
mature  the  crop  before  the  rust  may  become  injurious.  If  bor- 
deaux  mixture  is  used  in  combination  with  the  lead  arsenate  for 
the  bean  beetle,  it  will  help  some  to  prevent  infection.  When 
once  the  rust  appears  there  is  as  yet  no  remedy  for  the  affected 
plants.” 

Powdery  Mildew  of  Beans. 

“This  disease  appears  first  on  the  leaves  as  whitish  spots  of 
the  dense  threads  of  the  fungus.  The  spots  may  run  together  in 
some  cases  and  cover  the  leaf,  and  even  stem  and  pods.  It  is  more 
apt  to  be  injurious  late  in  the  season  in  moist  weather.  Attack 
by  this  disease  is  not  as  often  disastrous  as  is  attack  by  the  rust. 
The  same  recommendations  apply,  in  general,  as  to  prevention. 
Dusting  the  plants  thoroughly  with  flowers  of  sulphur  will  usually 
control  this  fungus  if  applied  promptly  on  appearance  of  spots. 

“It  is  well,  as  a matter  of  precaution  against  all  bean  diseases,, 
to  insist,  when  buying,  on  getting  seed  from  disease  free  fields, 
if  possible,  and  to  select  seed  from  disease  free  plants  when  using 
home  grown  seed.” 

The  following  articles  were  prepared  by  the  county 
agricultural  agents  in  several  of  the  principal  bean  grow- 
ing counties  of  New  Mexico:— 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


39 


BERNALILLO  COUNTY. 

Introduction. 

Beans  have  been  grown  in  this  County,  which  is  slightly 
north  and  west  of  the  central  part  of  the  State,  since  its  early 
history,  and  are  one  of  the  principal  foods  of  the  Spanish-Ameri- 
can  people.  However,  it  has  never  been  considered  a money  crop. 
They  are  grown  in  both  the  valley  and  mountainous  districts, 
principally  the  latter.  The  New  Mexico  Pinto  bean  is  the  leading 
variety,  though  the  Bayo  is  sometimes  grown,  because  of  its 
quick  maturing  habit.  The  area  devoted  to  bean  culture  in  this 
County  would  probably  not  exceed  one  thousand  acres.  They 
are  grown  on  a majority  of  the  farms,  on  small  areas.  Seed 
selection  is  seldom  or  never  practiced,  and  as  a consequence  the 
varieties  are  very  badly  mixed. 

Seasonal  Conditions. 

The  elevation  of  the  Rio  Grande  Valley  in  the  County  is  ap- 
proximately 4,950  feet.  The  mountainous  districts,  in  the  eastern 
portion  of  the  County,  are  considerably  higher.  The  average  date 
of  the  last  killing  frost,  in  the  spring,  is  April  18;  an  occasional 
killing  frost  has  occurred  as  late  as  May  15.  The  average  date  of 
the  first  killing  frost  in  the  fall  is  October  19.  Some  have  been 
reported  as  early  .as  September  17.  The  annual  rainfall  averages 
7.51  inches,  nearly  fifty  per  cent  of  which  occurs  during  June, 
July  and  August;  the  remainder  being  equally  distributed  through- 
out the  other  nine  months.  The  readings  from  which  these  data 
were  compiled  were  taken  in  the  vicinity  of  Albuquerque,  and 
will  hardly  apply  to  the  higher  altitudes,  where  much  winter 
snow  falls.  The  table  below  shows  the  monthly  and  seasonal 
temperatures  and  precipitations. 

Planting. 

Very  little  attention  is  given  to  the  preparation  of  a proper 
seed  bed.  The  most  successful  planters  fall  plow,  and  harrow 
several  times  during  the'  winter  and  spring.  A good  seed  bed  for 
the  catching  and  holding  of  winter  moisture  is  necessary  in  the 
dry  farming  districts,  but  is  not  considered  so  essential  where 
irrigation  is  practiced.  The  land  on  which  beans  are  to  be  grown 
is  generally  irrigated  a few  days  in  advance  of  the  planting  season, 
and  as  soon  as  it  is  ready  to  plow  the  seed  is  scattered  broadcast 
by  hand  or  dropped  in  the  furrows.  Thus  at  one  operation  the 
seed  bed  is  prepared  and  the  seed  planted.  The  field  is  then  gone 
over  with  a heavy  log  or  drag,  which  tends  to  firm  and  smooth 
the  soil.  Borders  are  laid  out  with  a plow  and  reinforced  with 


40 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


NORMAL  MONTHLY,  SEASONAL,  AND  ANNUAL  TEMPERATURE  AND  PRE- 
CIPITATION AT  ALBUQUERQUE,  BERNALILLO  COUNTY,  N.  M. 


TEMPERATURE 


PRECIPITATION 


MONTH 

Mean 

Absolute 

Maximum 

Absolute 

Minimum 

Mean 

Total  Amount 

for  the  Driest 

Year 

Total  Amount 

for  the  Wettest 

Year 

Snow,  Averag-e 

Depth 

|Deg.  F. 

Deg..F. 

Deg.  F. 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

December  

1 34.4 

69 

3 

0.40 

0.84 

2.93 

1.8 

January  

1 33.8 

70 

—4 

0.40 

0.32 

1.00 

2.0 

February  | 

39.3  | 

78  j 

-10  | 

0.24 

Trace 

Trace 

1.7 

Winter  

| 35.8  | 

1 

, 

^ 1.04  | 

1 1.16  | 

3.93 

5.5 

March  

47.2  1 

| 89 

12 

0.21 

Trace 

Trace 

0.7 

April  

55.7 

89 

13 

0.53 

.00 

4.20 

Trace 

May  

64.7  | 

| 95 

30 

0.39 

| 0.23 

.00 

0.0 

Spring-  * 

| 55.9  1 

1 

1 

1.13 

| 0.23 

4.20 

0.7 

June  

| 73.4  | 

! 104 

37 

1 

0.76 

Trace 

1.37 

0.0 

July  

1 77.1 

| 104 

44 

1.16 

1.20 

0.22 

0.0 

August  

| 75.3  | 

99 

45 

1.30 

0.70 

0.72 

0.0 

Summer  

| '75.3  1 

1 

1 

3.22 

1.90 

2.31 

0.0 

September  

1 

i 67.8 

97 

30 

0.88 

0.55 

0.59 

0.0 

October  

| 56.6 

85 

24 

0.73 

Trace 

.00 

0.4 

November  

| 43.3 

76 

7 

0.51 

1.10 

4.70 

0.6 

Fall  | 

^ 55.9  | 

, 1 

, 1 

2.12  | 

^ 1.65  | 

1 5.29  | 

1.0 

1 

Year  

1 55.7  | 

I 104  | 

1 

' -10  | 
1 

! 7.51 

1 

j 4.94 

15.73 

7.2 

the  hoe.  The  seed  is  generally  covered  four  to  six  inches  deep. 
Seldom  are  the  fields  watered  before  the  beans  germinate,  as  this 
packs  the  soil  and  causes  a poor  stand. 

In  the  dry-farming  districts  in  the  County  the  methods  of 
planting  are  the  same  as  previously  described,  excepting  that  they 
do  not  irrigate  or  make  borders.  The  .seeding  rate  is  not  definitely 
known,  but  varies  between  twenty  and  forty  pounds  to  the  acre, 
according  to  the  ideas  of  the  planter.  The  principal  planting  dates 
are  early  spring  and  midsummer.  Much  of  the  acreage  is  planted 
from  June  1 to  July  15. 

Cultivation. 

Seldom  are  horse  tools  used  for  cultivating  beans,  as  few  of 
the  bean  growers  possess  such  implements;  this  would  also  be 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


41 


impossible  where  the  beans  are  planted  broadcast.  The  fields  are 
usually  gone  over  twice  and  the  weeds  pulled  by  hand  or  chopped 
with  the  hoe:  This  is  all  the  cultivation  that  is  given.  They  are 
irrigated  one  to  three  times,  according  to  the  seasonal  conditions, 
but  generally  when  the  vines  are  about  half  grown  and  again  when 
in  full  bloom.  They  are  always  flooded,  and  if  the  water  is  very 
silty  they  are  either  not  irrigated  at  all  or  a very  light  application 
is  made.  This  is  because  the  vines  are  often  killed  by  being 
covered  or  allowed  to  stand  for  any  considerable  length  of  time 
in  muddy  water. 

Harvesting  and  Threshing. 

The  harvesting  is  all  done  by  hand,  in  this  County.  Usually 
the  plants  are  pulled  in  the  early  morning,  when  wet  with  dew, 

as  the  beans  do  not  shatter  badly  excepting  when  very  dry.  Sel- 

dom are  they  pulled  until  all  the  pods  are  well  matured;  they  are 
then  thrown  in  small  piles  about  the  field.  The  next  day  they 

are  hauled  to  the  threshing  yards  and  piled.  This  yard  is  a hard 

spot  of  earth  from  which  has  been  swept  all  the  loose  dirt.  If 
there  is  any  considerable  quantity  the  beans  are  tramped  out  with 
animals,  principally  horses  and  goats.  If  the  acreage  is  small  they 
are  beaten  out  with  a flail.  They  are  cleaned  by  winding,  and 
sacked.  No  fanning  machines  are  used.  An  occasional  field  is 
threshed  and  cleaned  with  a small  grain  thresher. 

During  the  past  few  years  great  damage  has  resulted  to  the 
crop  from  the  work  of  the  bean  beetle. 

H.  C.  STEWART, 

County  Agricultural  Agent, 

Albuquerque,  N.  M. 


COLFAX  COUNTY. 

At  the  present  time  the  New  Mexico  Pinto  bean  is  not  grown 
very  extensively  in  Colfax  County,  but  it  is  reasonably  safe  to 
predict  that  it  will  become  one  of  the  most  important  crops  in  a 
surprisingly  short  time.  The  growing  demand  for  this  variety  of 
bean,  together  with  its  excellent  adaptability  here,  due  to  its 
drouth  resistant  and  high  yielding  qualities,  is  attracting  the 
active  interest  of  many  farmers.  In  addition  to  the  advantages 
referred  to  above,  it  is  a very  profitable  money  crop,  and  at  the 
same  time  fits  in  well  with  the  crops  grown  in  the  County,  as  a 
part  of  a crop  rotation. 

This  crop  is  grown  on  both  irrigated  and  dry  land,  on  lands 
which  are  classified  as  plains  lands.  The  plains  areas  of  this 
County  vary  in  altitude  from  5,700  to  7,000  feet. 

The  crop  is  usually  planted  the  last  of  May  to  the  middle  of 
June.  This  usually  insures  against  damage  from  the  last  killing 


42 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


frost,  which  seldom  comes  later  than  the  15th  of  May.  In  some 
instances,  however,  killing  frosts  have  come  as  late  as  the  6th  of 
June.  The  first  killing  frost  in  the  fall  usually  occurs  about  the 
first  of  October,  but  may  occur  any  time  after  the  20th  of  Sep- 
tember. 

This  crop  is  planted  on  spring  plowed  land  by  most  of  the 
farmers,  which  practice  is  attributable  to  the  fact  that  late  plant- 
ing allows  the  farmers  ample  time  to  prepare  the  seed  bed,  the 
fall  plowed  land  being  used  for  other  crops  which  require  earlier 
planting.  So  far  it  is  not  definitely  known  which  is  the  better, 
spring  plowed  or  fall  plowed  land. 

On  account  of  their  drouth  resistance,  beans  are  often  planted 
on  sod  land;  in  which  case  no  cultivation  is  practiced.  However, 
much  better  yields  are  obtained  on  older  land,  where  cultivation 
is  possible. 

In  plowing  land  for  beans,  most  of  the  farmers  plow  from 
four  to  six  inches  deep.  It  is  difficult  to  say  what  depth  of 
plowing  is  best,  as  no  tests  have  been  made.  However,  land  which 
has  been  seeded  to  small  grain  crops  the  preceding  year  should  be 
plowed  at  least  six  inches  deep  preparatory  to  the  planting  of 
beans.  The  land  should  be  plowed  as  early  as  possible  in  the 
spring,  in  order  to  assure  the  formation  of  a good  seed  bed.  The 
land  plowed  each  day  should  be  harrowed  the  same  day,  in  order 
to  conserve  the  moisture  and  because  the  soil  works  up  much 
better  than  if  allowed  to  dry.  If  rains  pack  the  soil  sufficiently 
to  form  a crust  the  field  should  be  harrowed  to  form  a mulch; 
thus  conserving  the  moisture. 

The  amount  of  seed  planted  per  acre  varies  from  12  to  75 
pounds.  Twelve  to  fifteen  pounds  per  acre  is  ample  on  dry  land, 
and  from  15  to  20  pounds  is  being  planted  on  irrigated  land  in 
this  County.  Observations  made  in  a great  many  fields  indicate 
that  a large  proportion  of  the  farmers  are  seeding  too  heavily, 
which  usually  results  in  lower  yields,  poorer  quality  and  waste  of 
seed. 

Beans  are  planted  by  means  of  bean  or  corn  planters,  at  a 
depth  of  from  3 to  4 inches  in  rows  from  24  to  36  inches  apart. 
Where  the  proper  amount  of  seed  is  sown,  plants  are  from  12  to 
18  inches  apart  in  the  rows. 

The  bean  crop  responds  very  readily  to  cultivation,  but  many 
of  the  farmers  do  not  practice  cultivation  thoroughly  enough. 
The  effect  of  thorough  cultivation  was  very  apparent  in  1916.  On 
account  of  the  dry  weather,  many  farmers  became  discouraged 
and  discontinued  the  cultivation  of  bean  fields.  In  many  cases 
where  cultivation  was  discontinued,  absolute  failure  resulted,  or 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


43 


■else  very  low  yields  were  obtained.  Where  cultivation  was  per- 
sistently practiced  yields  from  three  to  six  times  as  large  were 
obtained.  Bean  fields  should  be  cultivated  from  three  to  five 
times,  depending  upon  conditions  of  rainfall,  soil,  and  weed  growth. 

Harvesting  usually  begins  about  the  first  week  in  September, 
but  the  greater  portion  of  the  crop  is  harvested  after  the  15th  of 
September. 

The  bean  crop  in  Colfax  County  has  not  been  very  large  up  to 
the  present  time,  and  but  few  of  the  farmers  have  harvesting 
machinery.  Most  of  the  growers  pull  the  beans  by  hand  and 
thresh  them  by  tramping  out  with  stock.  But  the  acreage  of  this 
crop  is  rapidly  increasing  and  modern  harvesting  machinery  will 
soon  be  in  use. 

The  bean  lady-bird  beetle  does  considerable  damage  to  the 
bean  crop  here.  Up  to  the  present  time  but  very  little  has 
been  done  toward  its  control. 

V.  L.  MARTINEAU, 

County  Agricultural  Agent, 

Raton,  N.  M. 


SAN  MIGUEL  COUNTY. 

The  farmers  of  San  Miguel  County  have  realized  that  the  best 
and  most  profitable  cash  crop  to  be  grown  at  present,  under  dry- 
farming conditions,  is  beans.  About  half  of  the  entire  area  of  the 
dry-farming  land  under  cultivation  is  being  planted  to  beans;  or 
in  other  words,  half  of  • all  crops  in  the  dry-farming  district  is 
beans. 

Altitude.  The  altitude  at  which  beans  are  grown  in  the  County 
ranges  from  4,400  feet  in  the  low  lands  to  8,000  feet  in  the  mountain 
districts.  They  seem  to  do  best  at  an  altitude  of  about  5,500  feet. 

Rainfall.  The  rainfall  in  the  County  varies  from  14  inches,  on 
the  low  lands,  to  22  inches  in  the  mountains.  The  precipitation 
comes  during  the  fall  and  winter  in  the  form  of  snow  and  in  the 
form  of  rain  about  the  middle  of  spring.  The  rainy  season  .starts 
again  about  the  15th  of  July.  Fortunately  for  the  bean  grower,  the 
rain  comes  during  the  growing  period  of  the  Crop. 

Soils.  There  are  many  kinds  of  soil  in  which  beans  can  be 
grown,  but  the  most  common  are  loam,  sandy  loam,  clay  and  sandy 
clay.  The  best  yields  have  been  secured  from  the  sandy  clay  soil. 
Such  soil  can  be  plowed  from  ten  to  twelve  inches  deep  very  suc- 
cessfully. It  is  rich  and  has  the  power  of  retaining  the  moisture 
for  long  periods. 

Seed  Bed.  The  preparation  of  the  seed  bed  is  one,  of  the  most- 
important  determining  factors  in  the  production  of  a good  crop  of 


44 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


beans.  It  has  been  clearly  demonstrated  that  the  best  crops  are 
raised  where  the  seed  bed  has  been  prepared  most  thoroughly. 
There  are  farmers  who  have  different  methods  of  preparing  the 
seed  bed  for  beans,  but  the  following  is  the  one  from  which  they 
have  had  best  results  in  dry  farming  in  this  County: — 

1st.  Fall  plow  from  eight  to  ten  inches  deep. 

2nd.  Disk  and  leave  the  land  open  through  the  winter. 

3rd.  Double  disk  in  the  spring  about  four  inches  deep. 

4th.  Smooth  with  tooth  harrow. 

Allow  the  land  to  settle  ‘for  about  three  weeks;  the  longer 
the  better,  provided  the  time  of  planting  is  not  retarded.  The 
same  method  of  preparing  the  seed  bed  is  followed  by  those  who 
do  their  first  plowing  in  the  spring,  except  that  they  do  not  plow 
over  6 inches  deep.  Disk  about  4 inches  deep,  smooth  with  tooth 
harrow  and  allow  the  land  to  settle  until  planting  time.  This 
method  is  not  as  good  as  the  first,  but  at  present  is  the  one  prac- 
ticed by  the  majority  of  the  farmers. 

Time  to  Plant.  The  time  of  planting  varies  in  the  County  with 
the  different  altitudes.  Usually  in  the  higher  altitudes  the  best 
time  to  plant  is  about  the  last  of  April,  as  soon  as  the  danger  of 
spring  frost  is  over.  Care  should  be  taken  not  to  plant  too  early.  If 
the  beans  are  nipped  by  frost,  they  will  be  stunted  and  the  chances 
for  a good  yield  will  be  poor.  In  the  lower  altitudes  beans  are 
planted  from  the  15th  of  April  to  about  the  middle  of  July;  or 
sometimes  even  a little  later. 

Planting.  Two  methods  of  planting  are  practiced:  hand  and 
machine  planting.  The  former  is  the  system  that  the  majority  of 
the  native  farmers  have  followed  heretofore.  It  consists  of  having  a 
boy  or  man  follow  the  first  furrow,  dropping  two  or  three  beans 
about  every  ten  or  fifteen  inches.  The  same  plow  goes  over  a 
second  time,  covering  the  beans  in  the  furrow.  Two  more  rounds 
with  the  plow  and  another  row  of  beans  is  planted.  The  distance 
at  which  the  beans  are  planted  varies  with  the  size  of  the  plow 
that  is  used.  The  average  distance  between  the  rows  is  from 
twenty-four  to  thirty-six  inches,  and  about  twelve  inches  in  the 
row. 

There  are  two  methods  of  planting  with  the  machine.  One  is 
drilling  the  beans  from  eight  to  twelve  inches  in  the  row,  the  rows 
being  from  thirty-six  to  forty-two  inches  apart.  The  other  is  the 
check  method,  which  consists  in  adjusting  the  corn  planter  so 
as  to  drop  from  three  to  six  beans  every  thirty-six  inches  -in  the 
row,  the  rows  being  thirty-six  inches  apart.  In  this  way  the 
beans  are  planted  at  the  same  distance  each  way.  The  cultiva- 
tor can  be  used  both  ways  and  no  hand  hoeing  is  necessary. 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


45 


Seeding.  As  a general  rule,  farmers  have  planted  twice  as  much 
seed  as  they  should.  The  native  farmers,  particularly,  plant  a com- 
paratively large  amount  of  seed  per  acre,  because  they  use  no 
machine  in  planting  and  the  distance  between  the  rows  varies 


FIG  12. — Selected  New  Mexico  Pinto  Beans  for  Seed. 


with  the  size  of  plow  used.  However,  much  less  seed  is  being 
planted  at  the  present  time  than  has  been  in  the  past.  It  takes 
from  twenty-five  to  thirty  pounds  of  beans  per  acre  when  planted 
by  hand;  from  fifteen  to  eighteen  pounds  are  used  in  drilling 
with  a corn  planter,  and  about  twelve  pounds  per  acre  when  the 
^planting  is  done  by  the  check  method. 

Seed  Selection  is  one  of  the  very  important  factors  in  im- 
proving the  quality  of  the  beans  raised  in  San  Miguel  County. 
If  beans  of  uniform  type  and  color  are  desired,  seed  with  the 
same  uniformity  must  be  planted.  To  do  this,  if  one  does  not 
have  pure  seed,  the  common  New  Mexico  Pinto  beans  may  be 
sorted,  leaving  only  those  of  uniform  type  and  color.  Splendid 
results  have  been  attained  by  selecting  the  seed. 

Varieties.  There  are  three  predominating  varieties  of  beans 
grown  in  this.  County.  Mixed  with  these  varieties,  sixteen  dif- 
ferent kinds  of  beans  are  found. 

Mexican  Beans.  The  term  “Mexican  bean”  is  very  indefinite, 
and  should  never  be  used  without  a modifier.  If  we  say  Mexican 
Bayo  beans,  Yellow  Mexican  beans,  or  Pinto  Mexican  beans,  a 
particular  kind  of  bean  is  identified  and  all  who  know  the  bean 
will  understand  the  term.  In  the  past,  considerable  confusion  has 
been  caused  by  buyers’  not  stating  which  variety  of  Mexican 
bean  was  desired. 


46 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


New  Mexico  Pinto  Beans.  This  is  now  the  recognized  com-' 
mercial  name  for  the  so-called  Mexican  Pintos  or  Rosillos.  It 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  there  is  a vast  difference  between 
the  New  Mexico  Pintos  and  the  Mexican  Pintos.  The  latter  may 
be  of  two  or  three  colors:  mottled,  black  and  white,  yellow  and: 
white,  pink,  purple,  tan,  blue,  red  or  any  other  color.  New  Mex- 
ico Pinto  beans  are  of  a cream  ground  color,  mottled  with  dark 
tan  or  olive  drab.  Beans  with  stripes,  half  white  and  black, 
almost  entirely  dark,  or  red,  should  never  be  classed  as  New- 
Mexico  Pintos;  which  latter  are  a native  production  of  the  State. 
It  is  a heavy  yielder  and  drouth  resistant.  Over  95%  of  all  beans 
grown  on  the  dry  farms  of  San  Miguel  County  are  of  this  type. 

Other  Beans.  The  other  5%  of  beans  raised  in  this  County 
are  the  Bayo,  the  Little  Navy,  the  Large  Navy  and  the  Lady 
White;  also  the  Ancient  Yellow.  The  California  Pinks  are  be- 
ginning to  be  raised.  These  beans  grow  almost  as  well  as  the 
New  Mexico  Pintos,  but  are  considered  hardly  so  desirable  for 
dry  farming. 

Harvesting  begins  about  the  20th  of  September  and  ceases- 
after  the  first  frost,  about  the  latter  part  of  October.  Most  of 
the  beans  are  pulled  by  hand.  A man  can  pull  aboiyt  an  acre  a 
day.  Many  of  the  farmers  are  beginning  to  use  the  bean  cutter, 
which  is  similar  to  a cultivator,  having  two  sharp  knives  which 
run  about  two  inches  under  the  surface  of  the  ground,  at  an  angle 
with  the  rows  of  about  45  degrees.  The  beans  remain  standing 
until  they  are  gathered  in  small  shocks,  which  afterward  are- 
hauled  to  the  stack.  Land  from  which  beans  have  been  cut  by 
machine  remains  in  very  good  condition  for  fall  plowing,  since- 
a good  mulch  has  been  formed  on  top  of  the  soil  by  the  cutter. 
A man  and  team  should  be  able  to  cut  not  less  than  five  acres- 
per  day. 

Threshing.  About  95%  of  the  beans  threshed  in  San  Miguel: 
County  at  present  are  threshed  by  horses  or  mules.  The  common, 
way  is  to  build  a yard  consisting  of  a level  floor,  especially  pre- 
pared by  puddling  and  leveling.  On  this  yard  the  beans  are- 
stacked  four  or  five  feet  high  and  two  or  more  horses  are  driven 
over  the  beans  until  the  threshing  is  completed,  The  cleaning 
is  done  by  the  wind.  Another  way  is  by  piling  up  the  beans  and 
riding  over  them  with  a disc  harrow.  Another  method  is  by  the 
use  of  a machine  having  cylinders  especially  made  for  beans  and 
peas.  There  are  very  few  of  these  machines  in  the  County  at 
present. 

Yields.  The  average  yield  per  acre  is  about  400  pounds,  in  a 
good  year;  however,  it  is  not  uncommon  to  find  farmers  who  are 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


47 


FIG.  13. — Old,  Native  Method  of  Threshing  Beans,  which  is  Giving  Way 
to  the  Modern  Threshing  Machine. 


averaging  from  800  to  1,000  pounds  per  acre.  Some  of  these 
farmers  have  not  only  done  this  one  year,  but  for  the  past  several 
years:  They  plow  in  the  fall,  and  do  not  spare  horse  flesh  in 
the  preparation  of  the  seed  bed.  The  following  is  the  approximate 
cost  of  production  per  acre,  with  an  average  yield,  on  a 40-acre 
basis: — 

Cost  of  Producing  an  Acre  of  Beans  under  Dry-Farming  Conditions. 

Non- selected  Selected 


Fall  plowing . $110  $2.00 

Double  Disking  .70  .70 

Double  Disking  in  spring,  three  times 1.50 

Smoothing,  harrowed  : .50  .50 

Seed,  15  lbs.,  at  7c 1.05  1.05 

Planting  .50  .50 

Cultivations,  two 1.00  Three  1.50 

Weeding,  one  .50  Two  1.00 

Cutting  or  pulling  .75  1.00 

Threshing,  10  cts.  per  hundredweight .40  .80 

Sacks,  4,  at  15  cts .60  8 at  15c  1.20 

Interest  and  taxes,  $10  per  acre 1.00  1.00 


$8.50  $12.75 

Gross  returns,  400  lbs.,  at  4 cts 16.00  800  lbs, 

at  4c  32.00 


Profit $ 7.50  $19.25 

Insects.  The  most  troublesome  insect  that  the  bean  growers 
have  in  San  Miguel  County  is  the  spotted  bean  beetle.  They  seem 


48 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


to  appear  on  old  land  first.  Small  areas  are  infested  the  first  year, 
and  they  gradually  spread  over  the  entire  field.  Fortunately,  we 
have  had  no  great  losses  from  this  insect,  so  far. 

M.  R.  GONZALEZ, 

County  Agricultural  Agent, 

East  Las  Vegas,  N.  M. 


TORRANCE  COUNTY. 

This  County  is  near  the  center  of  the  State.  The  altitude 
where  beans  are  grown  averages  about  6,500  feet,  and  the  average 
annual  precipitation  for  the  County  is  approximately  16.5  inches. 
The  average  precipitation  for  April  is  1.35  inch;  May,  .69  inch; 
June,  1.12  inch;  July,  3.33  inches;  August,  2.52  inches;  Septem- 
ber, 1.39  inch:  or  a total  of  10.40  inches  for  the  growing  season. 
The  average  date  of  the  last  killing  frost  in  the  spring  is  May  10; 
of  the  first  killing  frost  in  the  fall,  October  4;  the  average  length 
•of  the  growing  season  being  147  days. 

The  southwesterly  winds,  which  are  common  during  the 
months  of  March  and  April,  are  perhaps  the  most  discouraging 
feature  of  the  climate.  Comparatively  high  velocities  are  reached, 
resulting  in  the  loss  of  soil  moisture  and  at  times  in  serious 
drifting  of  the  surface  soil,  where  best  cultural  methods  are  not 
employed.  Inasmuch  as  the  moisture  in  the  ground,  rather  than 
timely  rains,  is  depended  on  to  germinate  the  seed,  these  winds 
become  a pertinent  reason  for  the  adoption  of  good  tillage  prac- 
tices. 

Preparation  of  Seed  Bed  and  Planting  Methods.  Experience 
in  Torrance  County  has  shown  that  flat  breaking  of  the  ground 
in  the  fall  is  preferable  to  the  same  operation  in  the  spring  or  to 
spring  listing.  The  land  being  left  in  the  rough,  opportunity  is 
afforded  for  the  storage  of  all  possible  winter  moisture.  This 
also  prevents,  to  a very  marked  degree,  the  spring  drifting  of 
the  soil;  and  seems  to  be  the  only  practical  method  of  controlling 
the  cutworm,  the  losses  from  which  are  great.  Listing  in  the 
early  spring  has  the  advantage  of  checking  drifting  of  the  soil, 
but  fails  in  the  matter  of  insect  control  and  winter  conservation 
of  moisture.  Fall  listing  has  decided  advantage  over  spring 
listing,  but  approximately  only  one-third  of  the  ground  is  covered 
and  from  the  point  of  cutworm  control  is  not  altogether  desirable. 
Insofar  as  area  is  concerned,  the  three  methods  are  at  present 
about  equally  represented. 

Shortly  before  planting,  the  ground  is  either  disked  or  har- 
rowed down  to  a plain  surface.  The  seed  is  then  planted  with 
either  a lister  planter  or  corn  planter.  Where  spring  listing  is 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


49’ 


practiced,  the  seed  is  dropped  in  the  bottom  of  the  furrow,  either 
at  the  time  of  listing  or  later.  There  is  little  choice  beween  the 
lister  planter  and  the  corn  planter,  except  that  the  former  permits 
of  a subsequent  covering  of  the  weeds  in  the  row  with  greater 
facility.  The  practice  of  harrowing  one  or  more  times  after  plant- 
ing is  very  desirable  in  destroying  weeds  before  the  crop  appears 
above  the  surface  of  the  ground.  This  is  more  practical  where 
the  crop  has  been  planted  on  a smooth  surface. 

Time  and  Method  of  Planting  and  Amount  of  Seed  Used.  The 
seed  is  usually  planted  about  May  10,  as  the  danger  of  frost  is 
then  not  serious  and  advantage  must  be  taken  of  the  moisture 
in  the  ground,  for  germination.  If  plantings  are  made  later,  the 
advantage  of  less  danger  of  frost  is  offset  by  moisture  losses. 

The  depth  of  planting  depends  on  the  nearness  of  germinating 
moisture  to  the  surface.  It  is  seldom  possible  or  desirable  to 
plant  at  a less  depth  than  four  inches,  and  successful  plantings 
have  been  reported  at  a depth  of  eight  inches.  It  is  hardly  likely 
that  extremely  deep  planting  is  desirable,  except  where  abso- 
lutely necessary.  There  is  also  great  danger  that  poor  germina- 
tion will  result  where  the  seed  is  planted  at  a depth  under  four 
inches,  in  this  County. 

Ordinarily,  from  12  to  20  pounds  of  seed  per  acre  is  used. 
Best  results  are  usually  obtained  by  planting  about  16  pounds 
in  36-  to  40-inch  rows. 

Cultivations  and  Implements.  In  ordinary  practice,  the  crop 
is  given  four  cultivations  with  a shovel  cultivator.  This  seems 
to  be  about  the  proper  number  for  weed  control  and  for  moisture 
conservation.  The  first,  cultivations,  which  approximate  two 
inches,  are  later  gradually  extended  to-  a depth  of  four  to  five 
inches.  These  cultivations  are  usually  periodic  until  the  first  real 
moisture  is  received.  The  date  of  this  first  beneficial  rainfall 
varies  from  about  July  1 to  July  25.  Subsequent  cultivations 
follow  irregularly  and  as  conditions  permit.  In  the  early  culti- 
vations the  sweep,  which  skims  near  the  surface,  is  largely  used, 
and  is  only  replaced  by  the  shovel  when  the  size  of  the  weeds  will 
no  longer  permit  of  its  use.  Ordinarily  one  hoeing  is  given  the 
crop  towards  the  end  of  the  growing  season.  This  operation  is 
usually  light  and  consists  in  eradicating  an  occasional  large  weed, 
if  prior  cultivations  have  been  improperly  carried  out. 

Date  and  Method  of  Harvesting.  Harvesting  usually  occurs 
between  the  latter  part  of  August  and  the  middle  of  September, 
and  the  time  for  this  operation  is  largely  determined  by  the  date 
of  planting.  In  this  operation,  the  regular  bean  harvester  is  used 
to  a limited  extent,  and  for  the  most  part,  the  farmers  depend 


50 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


upon  homemade  sweeps,  which  they  use  in  connection  with  culti- 
vators, corn  planters  or  sleds.  The  capacity  of  these  machines 
varies  from  one  to  two  rows,  and  in  most  cases  they  have  a pulling 
action,  rather  than  a cutting  one.  The  blades  of  these  machines 
operate  at  about  two  inches  beneath  the  surface.  Some  little 
hand  pulling  is  still  practiced,  but  this  method  is  seldom  followed 
in  Torrance  County,  except  where  weeds  have  made  the  use  of 
harvesting  implements  impossible.  Where  machinery  is  not  avail- 
able, the  moldboard  is  sometimes  removed  from  a turning  plow 
and  this  implement  used.  Unless  care  is  exercised  in  harvesting, 
the  vines  become  filled  with  dirt,  which  is  difficult  to  remove 
from  the  seed  and  in  addition,  makes  threshing  disagreeable  work. 

Preparation  for  Market.  Two  machines  are  ordinarily  used  in 
the  threshing  operation.  A special  bean  huller,  which  has  as  a 
feature  a slow  moving  cylinder  followed  by  a faster  moving  one, 
has  proved  generally  satisfactory.  In  other  cases,  the  regular 
small  grain  threshing  machine  is  slowed  down  and  part  of  the 
teeth  removed  from  the  concaves,  to  avoid  cracking.  Some  little 
threshing  by  the  use  of  animals  is  still  practiced  in  the  mountain 
districts.  Following  the  use  of  any  of  these  methods,  it  has  been 
found  necessary  to  reclean,  by  passing  the  beans  through  a fan- 
ning mill.  These  fanning  mills  are  usually  located  near  a railroad 
at  the  larger  centers,  where  the  final  operation  of  weighing  and 
sacking  to  an  even  hundred  pounds  and  of  loading  on  the  cars 
are  carried  out.  No  grading,  except  that  performed  by  the  fan- 
ning mill,  is  at  present  practiced,  though  there  is  no  question 
about  the  desirability  of  such  an  operation. 

Markets.  Several  local  buyers  are  found  within  the  County 
who  make  the  marketing  of  beans  their  chief  occupation  following 
the  harvesting  season.  They  deal  directly  with  the  farmer  and 
assume  any  further  risks  of  transporting  the  beans  to  commis- 
sion merchants,  who  are  located  principally  in  the  following  cen- 
ters: Detroit,  Chicago,  St.  Louis,  Kansas  City,  Joplin,  Memphis, 
New  Orleans,  Dallas,  Fort  Worth,  and  El  Paso.  In  the  case  of 
one  or  two  of  these  commission  merchants,  representatives  have 
been  sent  to  deal  directly  with  either  the  local  buyers  or  the 
farmers.  In  ordinary  practice,  the  local  buyer  assumes  the  cost 
of  re-cleaning  and  proper  bagging.  Where  this  work  is  contracted, 
the  farmer  pays  five  cents  per  hundredweight  for  re-cleaning  and 
bagging,  furnishes  the  sacks  and  loses  the  weight  of  the  inferior 
beans,  dust  and  chaff  resulting  from  the  operation. 

Yields,  Prices  Received  and  Cost  of  Production.  The  highest 
yield  thus  far  reported,  on  a fair  sized  area,  in  Torrance  County, 
is  1900  pounds  per  acre.  Yields  between  1,000  and  1,400  pounds 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


51 


are  not  uncommon,  under  dry-farming  conditions;  but  the  average 
is  much  less,  as' shown  by  the  table  below:— 


be 

2-0 

0'S 


Ph 


> 0) 


a>  ... 

S.2 


1915  400  lbs.  $4.00  per  cwt.  $8.15  10,000  4,000,000 

1916  533  lbs.  6.50  per  cwt.  9.00  15,000  8,000,000 


ROLAND  HARWELL, 

County  Agricultural  Agent, 

Estancia,  N.  M. 


UNION  COUNTY. 

Union  County  lies  in  the  northeastern  corner  of  the  State, 
Colfax  and  San  Miguel  Counties  being  contiguous  on  the  west  and 
southwest,  respectively.  It  is  a high  rolling  plateau,  sloping  grad- 
ually to  the  east;  the  altitude  varying  from  4,000  to  6,500  feet 
above  sea  level.  The  average  annual  precipitation  is  about  16 
inches,  and  falls  mostly  during  the  growing  season,  April,  May, 
June,  July,  August  and  September;  the  months  of  heaviest  rain- 
fall being  July  and  August.  The  growing  season  is  usually  from 
about  May  1 to  October  1.  The  soils  are  mainly  of  the  heavy 
clay,  clay  loam,  silt,  sandy  loam  and  sandy  types.  High  winds 
are  of  frequent  occurrence,  and  soil  blowing  is  quite  general,  at 
times. 

Beans  grow  on  all  the  different  types  of  soil  and  from  the 
lowest  to  the  highest  elevations.*  However,  they  are  more  gen- 
erally grown  at  the  lower  altitudes,  as  the  season  is  longer  and 
late  frosts  are  less  frequent.  Here  they  are  one  of  the  principal 
crops  grown,  and  are,  at  the  present  time,  the  main  money  crop 
for  the  farmer.  They  work  in  well  as  a rotation  crop,  and  the 
acreage  is  being  rapidly  increased.  During  1915  there  were  100 
carloads  shipped  from  the  County,  and  about  150  carloads  were 
sold  in  1916. 

Soil.  While  beans  do  well  on  all  the  different  types  of  soil 
in  Union  County,  the  sandy  loam  soils,  with  the  general  methods 
of  farming,  give  the  best  results.  However,  the  heavier  or  “tight” 
lands  give  just  as  large  a yield  where  the  land  is  plowed  deep  in 
the  fall,  winter  or  early  spring,  and  a good  firm  seed  bed  estab- 
lished. 


52 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


Preparation  of  Land.  The  land  should  be  thoroughly  pre- 
pared, by  plowing  or  listing.  Fall  preparation  of  land  is  prefer- 
able and  should  be  done  to  a good  depth,  6 to  10  inches,  and  left 
rough  through  the  winter.  If  plowed  or  listed  in  the  spring,  the 
plowing  or  listing  should  be  done  as  early  as  possible.  Double 
listing  is  to  be  recommended  over  single  listing.  The  ground 
should  be  harrowed  as  early  in  the  spring  as  possible,  to  level  it* 
fill  the  air  spaces  and  form  a soil  mulch.  If  the  soil  is  cloddy 
and  does  not  work  into  a fine  firm  seed  bed,  a weighted  disk 
harrow  with  the  blades  set  straight  should  be  run  over  it.  The 
ground  should  be  harrowed  often  enough  to  maintain  the  soil 
mulch  and  keep  the  weeds  in  check,  until  time  of  planting. 

Planting.  Beans  may  be  planted  with  a lister,  a two-row  corn 
planter  or  a grain  drill.  The  two-row  planter  with  special  plates 
is  the  popular  machine  for  planting  beans  in  this  County.  The 
rows  are  usually  from  three  to  three  and  a half  feet  apart,  the 
seeding  being  done  at  the  rate  of  from  10  to  18  pounds  per  acre. 
On  new  or  sod  land  the  practice  of  double  rowing,  planting  the 
rows  twenty-one  inches  apart,  is  followed  to  some  extent.  This 
makes  cultivating  and  harvesting  difficult,  necessitating  hand 
labor  to  a large  extent.  It  is  doubtful  if  the  yields  justify  the 
increased  labor  and  cost  of  production. 

The  planting  is  usually  done  from  two  to  three  inches  deep. 
The  deep  planting  in  moist  soil,  so  that  germination  will  take 
place  promptly,  is  the  best  practice.  Where  the  planting  is  shallow* 
the  soil  dries  out  around  the  beans  and  they  must  lie  in  the 
ground  until  there  is  rain  to  bring  them  up. 

The  season  for  planting  extends  over  a long  period,  from  May 
1 to  July  15.  As  frost  sometimes  occurs  as  late  in  the  spring 
as  May  15  and  as  early  in  the  fall  as  October  1,  and  as  it  takes 
from  80  to  90  days  for ‘the  crop  to  mature,  the  medium  dates 
for  planting— May  15  to  June  15 — are  to  be  recommended. 

Cultural  Methods.  After  the  beans  have  been  planted  three  or 
four  days  and  before  they  are  up,  the  ground  should  be  harrowed 
with  a spike  tooth  harrow  to  kill  any  weeds  that  may  be  starting. 
Harrowing  should  not  be  done  when  the  beans  are  breaking 
through  the  ground,  as  many  of  them  would  be  broken  off  and 
killed.  They  should  be  harrowed  once  or  twice  more  while  they 
are  small.  After  they  are  too  tall  to  harrow — five  or  six  inches 
in  height — they  should  be  cultivated  shallow,  with  a small  shovel 
or  sweep  cultivator.  The  last  cultivation  should  not  be  close  to 
the  plants,  as  they  are  easily  injured.  The  cultivations  should 
be  given  often  enough  to  maintain  a soil  mulch  and  keep  the 
weeds  in  check. 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


53 


Harvesting.  Beans  are  harvested  by  hand  pulling,  by  plowing 
them  out  and  with  the  bean  harvester.  The  last  method  is  the 
one  generally  used  in  this  County,  and  is  the  best  method.  The 
harvesters  are  home  and  factory  made,  and  harvest  two  rows  at 
once,  raking  them  together.  Some  machines  have  a buncher  at- 
tachment and  bunch  the  two  rows  in  small  piles  at  the  same 
operation.  The  cutting  part  of  the  harvester  consists  of  a long 
blade  set  at  an  angle  to  the  row  and  run  about  an  inch  and  a 
half  under  the  surface  of  the  ground,  cutting  off  the  roots. 

Beans  should  be  harvested  when  a majority  of  the  pods  are 
ripe.  If  harvest  is  delayed  for  all  the  pods  to  ripen,  many  of 
those  that  were  first  to  mature  will  shatter  and  be  lost.  On 
account  of  the  different  dates  of  seeding,  harvesting  extends  over 
a long  period;  usually  beginning  the  last  of  August  and  continu- 
ing well  into  the  middle  of  October.  The  beans  are  generally 
stacked  in  long  narrow  stacks,  and  covered  with  bundles  of  sor- 
ghum or  grass  to  keep  them  dry.  They  are  threshed  with  a bean 
thresher,  in  nearly  every  case;  though  a few  flail  them  out,  where 
the  distance  from  threshers  is  too  great  to  bring  them  in. 


FIG.  14. — A Type  of  Bean  Harvester  Used  Extensively  in  the  Dry- 
farming Sections, 


54 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


Yields.  The  yields  vary  from  250  to  1,000  pounds  to  the  acre; 
the  average  yield  for  the  County  being  about  400  pounds.  The 
low  yields  are  due  to  poor  preparation  of  seed  beds,  poor  stands, 
lack  of  proper  cultivation,  and  to  insufficient  moisture.  Beans 
do  not  require  a large  supply  of  moisture  to  make  good  yields. 
They  withstand  drouth  very  well,  but  a drouth  during  the  blos- 
soming period  lowers  the  yield  by  blighting  the  blossoms. 

Variety.  The  New  Mexico  Pinto  is  the  principal  bean  grown 
in  Union  County,  about  99%  of  the  beans  grown  being  of  this 
variety.  Some  navy,  Tepary,  Red  Kidney  and  California  Pinks 
are  grown  and  fair  yields  obtained. 

Diseases  and  Insects.  The  bean  is  free  from  disease,  with  the 
exception  of  a rust  that  has  occurred  to  a small  extent  some 
years.  There  are  several  insects  that  do  considerable  damage  to 
the  crop:  the  cutworm,  black  and  spotted  beetles  and  some  worm 
that  works  in  the  stem.  It  enters  the  stem  near  the  surface  of  the 
ground  and  kills  the  plant. 

Price.  The  price  of  beans  varies  from  3 to  7 cents  per  pound ; 
the  average  for  the  past  five  years  being  about  3V2  cents.  The 
beans  are  usually  sold  to  local  warehouse  men  and  merchants. 

ORREN  BEATY, 

County  Agricultural  Agent, 

Clayton,  N.  M. 


SUMMARY. 

1.  Beans  have  been  grown  in  New  Mexico,  probably, , 
since  the  first  European  explorers  settled  in  this  terri- 
tory. 

2.  Due,  no  doubt,  to  the  long  period  of  cultivation 
and  the  unconscious  selection  by  the  growers,  varieties 
have  been  produced  which  are  well  adapted  to  New  Mex- 
ico conditions.  Some  of  these  are  the  New  Mexico  Pinto, 
the  Bayo  and  the  “Ancient  Yellow. ” 

3.  At  the  present  time  the  New  Mexico  Pinto  is 
being  grown  in  almost  all  of  the  agricultural  districts 
where  beans  are  grown;  both  under  irrigation  and  dry- 
farming conditions.  Probably  ninety  to  ninety-five  per 
cent  of  the  22,500,000  pounds  raised  in  1916  were  of  this 
variety. 

4.  Beans  can  he  grown  successfully  under  irriga- 
tion and  under  dry-farming  conditions,  provided  atten- 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


‘55 


tion  is  given  to  the  proper  cultivation  and  the  proper 
amount  of  moisture  for  the  crop. 

5.  The  planting  may  be  done  in  either  dry  or  moist 
soil.  The  moisture  in  the  soil  may  be  had  by  irrigating 
the  ground,  under  irrigation,  or  by  conserving  the  winter 
or  spring  moisture,  under  dry  farming.  Under  dry- 
farming conditions,  if  there  is  not  sufficient  moisture  in 
the  soil  when  the  seed  is  planted,  the  grower  must  depend 
upon  subsequent  rains  for  the  germination  of  the  seed. 

6.  Under  irrigation,  according  to  the  experimental 
data  secured  at  the  Station,  it  seems  that  better  germina- 
tion, and  consequently,  better  stands,  can  be  had  by  first 
irrigating  the  ground  and  planting  the  seed  in  moist  soil, 
than  by  planting  in  dry  soil  and  “irrigating  up.” 

7.  The  results  at  the  Experiment  Station  from  the 
different  depths  of  planting  indicate  that  if  the  beans 
are  planted  in  moist  soil,  best  germination  can  be  had 
at  three  to  four  inches,  but  that  satisfactory  germination 
can  also  be  had  from  a 2-  or  5-inch  depth.  A very  poor 
germination  was  obtained  from  a depth  of  1 inch. 

8.  When  the  beans  were  planted  in  dry  soil  and  irri- 
gated up,  the  best  germination  was  obtained  from  1-  to 
3-inch  depths ; very  poor  germination  was  obtained  from 
the  4-  and  5-inch  depths. 

9.  The  yield  was  larger  from  the  plats  that  were 
planted  in  moist  soil  than  from  those  planted  in  dry  soil 
and  then  irrigated  to  produce  germination. 

10.  It  is  advisable,  wherever  the  local  conditions 
favor  the  practice,  to  start  the  preparation  of  the  seed 
bed  in  the  fall.  This  will  not  only  help  materially  in 
conserving  the  winter  and  spring  moisture,  under  dry- 
farming conditions,  but  in  destroying  many  eggs,  larvae 
and  insects  that  may  become  injurious  to  the  plants  in 
summer. 

11.  New  Mexico  bean  growers  need  to  pay  consid- 
erably more  attention  to  the  matter  of  seed  selection.  In 
the  varieties  that  are  now  being  planted,  many  variations 


56 


NEW  MEXICO  BEANS. 


are  to  be  found.  These  variations  are  noted  in  the  differ- 
ence in  size,  and  particularly  in  the  coloring  and  mark- 
ings of  the  individual  beans.  Good  seed  is  fundamental 
in  the  growing  of  any  crop,  and  too  much  emphasis 
cannot  be  placed  at  this  time  on  the  use  of  better  seed 
beans  in  New  Mexico. 

12.  All  of  the  native  varieties  are  quite  drouth  re- 
sistant, good  yielders,  palatable  and  nutritious.  The 
little  Tepary  bean— judging  from  preliminary  experi- 
mental work— does  not  seem  to  cook  quite  so  readily  as 
the  New  Mexico  varieties;  and  on  the  whole,  does  not 
appear  to  be  quite  so  palatable.  Comparison  of  the 
analyses  made  also  shows  that  it  is  a little  lower  in  pro- 
teid  than  the  New  Mexico  varieties.  However,  this  bean 
has  some  excellent  qualities  that  might  be  taken  advan- 
tage of  in  plowing  under  as  a fertilizing  crop. 

13  The  New  Mexico  varieties  tried  at  the  Station 
will  mature,  in  southern  New  Mexico,  in  eighty  to  ninety 
days. 

14.  The  bean  beetle,  cutworms,  and  mildew  are 
some  of  the  pests  that  the  bean  grower  may  have  to  fight 
during  the  growing  season. 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. 

Much  credit  is  due  to  Messrs.  A.  B.  Fite,  for  assisting 
with  the  experiments  with  beans,  and  C.  P.  Wilson,  for 
aid  given  in  the  compilation  of  the  data;  to  Professor 
Merrill  for  the  article  on  bean  pests;  and  to  Dr.  L.  A. 
Higley  for  furnishing  analyses  of  the  different  varieties 
of  beans. 

Credit  is  due  to  the  Extension  Division  for  the  arti- 
cles furnished  by  County  Agricultural  Agents  H.  C. 
Stewart,  V.  L.  Martineau,  M.  R.  Gonzalez,  Roland  Har- 
well and  Orren  Beaty.  Acknowledgment  is  also  due 
Messrs.  M.  R.  Gonzalez  for  cuts  Nos.  1,  3,  9,  11,  12  and 
13 ; and  Orren  Beaty  for  cut  No.  14. 


BULLETIN  No.  106 


April,  1917 


New  Mexico  College  of  Agriculture 
and  Mechanic  Arts 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station 
State  College,  N.  M. 


Fig.  1. 

ADULT  BEAN  BEETLE. 
Line  at  right  shows  natural  size. 
(Original). 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 

(Epilachna  corrupta  Muls.) 
By  D.  E.  MERRILL 


Rio  Grande  Publishing  Company 
Las  Cruces,  N.  M. 

1917. 


New  Mexico  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


BOARD  OF  CONTROL 


Board  of  Regents  of  the  College 

C.  L.  HILL,  President,  Hill,  N.  M. 

R.  E.  PUTNEY,  Secretary  and  Treasurer,  Albuquerque,  N.  M. 
E.  C.  CRAMPTON,  Raton,  N.  M. 

M.  Y.  MONICAL,  Dexter,  N.  M. 

J.  S.  QUESENBERRY,  Las  Cruces,  N.  M. 


Advisory  Members 

HON.  W.  E.  LINDSEY,  Governor  of  New  Mexico,  Santa  Fe,  N.  M. 
HON.  J.  H.  WAGNER,  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction, 
Santa  Fe,  N.  M. 


STATION  STAFF 


A.  D.  CRILE,  Ph.  D 

FABIAN  GARCIA,  M.  S.  A.__ 
LUTHER  FOSTER,  M.  S.  A._ 

D.  E.  MERRILL,  M.  S 

L.  A.  HIGLEY,  Ph.  D 

R.  L.  STEWART,  M.  S.  A 

D.  W.  A.  BLOODGOOD,  B.  S. 
J.  D.  HUNGERFORD,  B.  S.__. 

JOSE  QUINTERO,  B.  S 

J.  R.  MEEKS,  B.  S.  A 

J.  W.  RIGNEY,  B.  S.  A 

E.  J.  MAYNARD,  B.  S.  A 

A.  B.  FITE,  B.  S.  A 

J.  T.  BARLOW,  B.  S.  A 

F.  C.  WERKENTHIN,  M.  A._ 
R.  B.  THOMPSON,  B.  S.  A._. 

K.  B.  OGILVIE,  B.  S 

H.  G.  SMITH*,  B.  S.  A 

FLOY  E.  FRENCH 

R.  V.  WARE 

C.  P.  WILSON,  M.  S 


President  of  the  College 

Director  and  Horticulturist 

Animal  Husbandman 

Biologist 

Chemist 

: Agronomist 

Irrigation  Engineer 

Nutrition  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Animal  Husbandman 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Animal'  Husbandman 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

issztant  Biologist 

Assistant  Poultryman 

Assistant  in  Irrigation 

Assistant  in  Dry-Land  Agriculture 

Librarian 

Registrar 

Secretary  and  Editor 


♦Superintendent  of  the  Tucumcari,  N.  M.,  Field  Station,  operated  by 
the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  in  cooperation  with  the  New  Mexico 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 


BULLETIN  NO.  106. 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 

( Epilachna  corrupta  Muls.) 

By  D.  E.  Merrill 

SUMMARY. 

1.  The  bean  beetle,  Epilachna  corrupta  Mills.,  is  the  most  in- 
jurious insect  attacking  the  bean  in  New  Mexico.  Yearly 
damage  is  estimated  in  various  localities  from  5%  to 
100%  of  the  crop.  A conservative  estimate  puts  the  dam- 
age at  close  to  10%  on  the  average.  This  species  confines 
its  attack  to  the  bean. 

2.  Injury  may  be  reduced  to  a minimum  by  cooperation  in 
the  use  of  preventive  methods  of  control,  firstly,  and  of 
remedial  methods,  secondly. 

3.  There  are  two  broods  of  the  bean  beetle  each  year  in  the 
southern  part  of  New  Mexico  where  studies  of  the  life 
history  were  made.  The  adults  hibernate.  In  all  stages 
the  insect  may  be  found  upon  the  bean  plant.  On  an  aver- 
age, the  time,  necessary  for  the  development  from  egg  to 
adults  is  25  days,  approximately. 

4.  This  species  is  definitely  reported  from  New  Mexico,  Ari- 
zona, Colorado,  Texas,  Utah,  and  Mexico. 


4 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  bean  beetle,  (Fig.  1 and  Fig.  2a)  as  the  bean  lady- 
bird is  commonly  called  in  New  Mexico,  has  proven  to  be  the 
most  serious  specific  pest  of  the  bean  in  the  State.  Since  not 
much  effort  had  been  put  forth  previously  to  attempt  its  con- 
trol, investigations  were  begun  in  1913,  .at  the  Experiment 
Station,  to  learn  the  life  history  of  this  species  and  possibilities 
of  control.  Most  of  the  life  history  work  was  done  in  1914. 
Data  obtained  from  personal  observation  of  the  bean  beetle 
in  many  parts  of  the  State  by  the  writer  serve  to  supplement 
some  of  the  findings  of  the  investigation  proper. 

Since  the  bean  is  one  of  the  most  important  crops  in 
the  State,  it  is  well  for  the  grower  to  be  acquainted  with  this 
pest  so  a probable  source  of  damage  may  be  avoided.  This 
beetle,  as  far  as  can  be  learned,  confines  its  attacks  to  the 
bean.  For  this  reason  its  control  should  be  made  easier.  The 
following  pages  set  forth  a consideration  of  the  bean  beetle  as 
to  habits  and  control,  and  give,  also,  the  details  of  its  life  his- 
tory as  worked  out  at  the  Experiment  Station.  Notes  are 
appended  on  the  history  and  distribution  of  the  species. 

GENERAL  DESCRIPTION  OF  ADULTS  AND  YOUNG. 

The  members  of  the  lady-bird  family,  to  which  the  bean 
beetle  belongs,  are,  as  a rule,  very  beneficial  in  that  they  de- 
stroy quantities  of  plant  lice,  scale  insects,  and  soft  bodied 
larvae  of  many  kinds.  They  are  sub-hemispherical  in  shape, 
variously  colored  and  often  spotted,  so  the  casual  observer 
often  fails  to  distinguish  this  injurious  species  from  the  bene- 
ficial members  of  the  family.  Or,  the  latter  may  be  confused 
with  the  former  and  so  be  held  wrongly  in  disfavor.  It  should 
be  remembered  that  the  former  is  the  only  plant-eating  mem- 
ber of  the  family  in  New  Mexico. 

The  ground  color  of  the  bean  beetle  is  brownish-orange. 
Eight  black  spots  are  found  on  each  wing  cover,  three  in  a 
broken  row  across  the  front  of  the  wing  cover,  a second  row 
of  three  across  the  center,  and  a row  of  two,  nearly  parallel 


a 


c 


d 


b 


Fig.  2.  Full  Grown  Larva  at  a;  Pupae  at  b;  Adult  at  c;  Egg  Cluster  at  d.  Natural  Size. 
(Original). 


Fig.  3.  Bean  Plant  De- 
stroyed by  Larvae  of  the 
Bean  Beetle.  (Original). 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


0 

to  these,  toward  the  tip.  The  length  of  the  adult  averages 
about  one-fourth  of  an  inch,  this  being  larger  than  other  mem- 
bers of  the  family  common  in  the  State.  The  tough  outer 
wings  cover  and  protect  a delicate  inner  pair  by  means  of  which 
these  insects  fly  very  readily. 

The  larvae  (Fig.  2a)  or  young,  of  the  bean  beetle  are 
spiny,  yellow,  worm-like  creatures,  varying  in  size  from  less 
than  1-16  of  an  inch,  when  first  hatched,  to  about  5-16  of  an 
inch  when  growth  is  completed.  Unless  one  has  taken  care  to 
learn  the  facts,  the  adult  beetle  will  not  be  noted  in  the  bean 
patch  as  being  the  parent  of  these  “worms”  that  eat  so 
voraciously.  The  larvae  have  no  wings  at  all  so  have  to  travel 
altogether  on  foot.  When  full  grown  the  larva  undergoes  a 
further  change  into  the  pupa  (Fig.  2b).  The  pupa  is  attached 
by  one  end  to  some  object,  is  non-feeding,  yellow  in  color, 
about  the  size  of  the  adult,  oval  in  outline,  the  free  end  being 
devoid  of  spines,  the  remains  of  the  last  larval  skin  being  seen 
about  the  attached  end.  From  this  pupa  comes  the  adult  later. 

NATURE  AND  EXTENT  OF  INJURY. 

Injury  to  the  bean  plant  occurs  through  having  its  leaves 
eaten  outright  or  skeletonized  (Fig.  3)  by  the  adult  beetles 
or  their  larvae.  The  adult  beetles  are  not  responsible  for 
nearly  as  great  a share  of  the  injury  as  are  their  young.  They 
usually  feed  by  eating  holes  here  and  there  entirely  through 
the  leaves,  rarely  the  whole  leaf  being  destroyed  by  them. 
As  a rule  they  cling  to  the  under  side  of  the  leaf  and  eat 
through  to  the  upper  side.  The  voracious  larvae  feed  on  the 
under  side  of  the  leaf,  in  colonies  when  they  are  young,  but 
scattered  later.  (Fig.  6).  When  at  all  numerous  they  eat  off 
the  lower  epidermis  and  all  the  green  substance  of  the  central 
layers  of  the  leaf.  In  this  way  the  upper  epidermis  and  the 
veins  remain  as  a whitish  skeleton  of  the  leaf.  Part  or  all 
of  the  leaves  on  a plant  may  be  damaged  in  this  way  and  the 
feeding  surface  be  so  reduced  that  growth  is  too  severely 
checked  or  stopped  altogether.  The  young  pods  may  be  at- 
tacked, holes  being  scraped  in  their  sides,  or  an  occasional 


6 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


flower  eaten.  Injury  of  this  nature  is  not  ,as  a rule,  usual 
or  very  great. 

The  effect  of  the  checking  or  stopping  of  the  growth  will 
vary  with  the  age  of  the  plant  attacked.  If  the  pods  are  well 
set  at  the  beginning  of  the  injury,  the  result  is  apt  to  be  a 
hastening  of  maturity  and  a reduction  in  yield.  If  no  pods 
are  set;  the  plant  may  fail  to  yield  at  all.  It  may  die  at  once 
or  linger  a While  in  a vain  attempt  to  start  new  growth  from 
the  top,  and  still  fail  to  recuperate  or  produce  pods. 

The  extent  of  damage  to  the  bean  crop  in  any  one  year 
depends  largely  upon  several  conditions.  It  appears  that  late 
planted  beans  suffer  most,  the  number  of  larvae  increasing  as 
the  season  advances.  Usually  a more  severe  infestation  may 
be  expected  where  the  chances  for  hibernation  of  the  adults 
have  been  made  better  by  allowing  weeds,  crop  remnants, 
or  piles  of  rubbish  to  remain  in  or  close  to  the  field.  Damage 
seems  to  be  greater  where  beans  have  followed  beans  on  the 
same  ground  year  after  year,  there  being  a direct  ratio  be- 
tween age  of  the  field  and  extent  of  injury.  In  severe  cases 
destruction  of  the  crop  may  be  total.  A likely  average  esti- 
mate of  damage  is  placed  close  to  ten  per  cent  of  the  annual 
crop. 

In  Torrance  County,  in  1916,  the  bean  crop  was  estimated 
at  7,000,000  pounds,  with  a value  of  $420,000.  The  annual 
loss  caused  by  the  bean  beetle  previous  to  this  season  was 
placed  at  $26,000.  Considering  the  1916  crop  at  the  advanced 
prices  obtained,  the  loss  by  the  previous  estimate  would  be  six 
and  one-half  per  cent.  Figuring  at  the  prices  formerly  ob- 
tained for  the  crop,  the  per  cent  of  loss  would  run  much  higher. 
Other  bean  growing  localities  suffer  in  like  manner,  in  some 
the  growing  of  beans  being  discouraged  on  account  of  the 
certain  loss  from  the  beetle. 

TIME  OF  APPEARANCE. 

Adult  individuals  of  the  bean  beetle  that  have  passed 
the  winter  successfully  appear  on  the  bean  plants  rather  late. 
In  the  Mesilla  Valley  one  finds  them  in  small  numbers  after 
the  first  week  in  June.  A week  or  so  later  they  begin  laying 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


7 


eggs  and  the  larvae  appear  soon  after  from  these  eggs.  Ser- 
ious damage  may  be  expected  in  from  three  to  four  weeks 
after  the  beetles  appear  in  the  fields.  Regardless  of  locality, 
inquiries  from  over  the  State  seem  to  show  that  the  maximum 
damage  occurs  between  the  first  week  in  July  and  the  first 
week  in  August.  During  this  time  the  first  brood  of  larvae 
reaches  its  maximum  in  numbers  and  size  of  the  individuals 
and  the  second  brood  gets  well  started.  Control  measures 
should  be  applied,  then,  relatively  early,  for  as  we  shall  see, 
they  are  preventive  rather  than  remedial  in  nature.  A single 
female  has  been  observed  to  produce  754  eggs  in  40  days, 
and  it  is  this  rapid  rate  of  increase  that  has  to  be  forestalled. 

HIBERNATION  HABITS. 

Reproduction  continues  in  fall  until  failure  of  food  sup- 
ply or  until  sufficiently  cold  weather  comes  to  prohibit  egg- 
laying  and  destroy  the  larvae  that  are  too  immature  to  pupate. 
As  a rule  the  individuals  that  have  pupated  will  emerge,  the 
cold  not  being  suddenly  severe  enough  to  kill  them. 

Such  adults  as  are  left  when  the  food  supply  is  gone  and 
cold  weather  is  come,  scatter  to  find  suitable  places  for  pass- 
ing the  winter  in  hibernation.  If  bunches  of  old  vines,  weeds, 
rubbish,  or  such  be  left  in  the  field,  the  beetles  will  crawl 
down  under  them  and  perhaps  partly  bury  themselves 
in  the  soft  soil  beneath.  If  such  places  are  not  handy  the 
adults  will  fly  to  some  other  suitable  and  similar  places  where 
they  may  hide  themselves  away  and  remain  dormant  until 
late  spring.  They  will  hide  usually  as  near  as  possible  to 
the  fields  in  which  they  found  themselves  at  close  of  sum- 
mer. They  are  late  sleepers  and  do  not  emerge  from  hiding 
until  assured  that  warm  weather  is  certainly  come  to  stay. 

Cleaning  up  the  fields  in  fall  and  winter,  then,  prevents 
hibernation  there  or  kills  the  hibernating  individuals. 

FOOD  PLANTS  AND  FEEDING  HABITS. 

So  far  as  has  been  observed  or  reported,  the  bean  beetle 
confines  its  feeding  to  the  true  beans.  It  has  been  taken  on 
other  plants  but  never  found  feeding.  The  writer  conducted  a 


8 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


series  of  experiments  in  an  attempt  to  get  this  insect  to  eat 
of  other  plants.  A number  of  larvae  and  adults  were  confined 
in  cages  and  given  in  succession  fresh  leaves  of  potato,  tomato, 
chile  pepper,  lettuce,  celery,  cabbage,  and  cauliflower.  None  of 
the  leaves  were  eaten  and  many  of  the  insects  died  of  starva- 
tion rather  than  eat.  No  variety  of  field  or  garden  bean  has 
been  found  to  be  free  from  attack,  nor  any  particular  differ- 
ence observed  as  to  susceptibility  to  attack. 

Damage  to  morning  glories  and  sweet  potatoes  by  the 
bean  beetle  has  been  reported  by  casual  observers.  Where  op- 
portunity was  given  for  judgment  in  such  cases,  the  damage 
was  found  to  be  done  by  species  of  Chelymorpha  or  Cassida, 
which  bear  considerable  superficial  resemblance  to  the  bean 
beetle  and  feed  naturally  on  plants  of  the  morning  glory 
tribe. 

The  bean  beetles  do  not  appear  to  attack  the  very  young 
bean  plants  to  any  considerable  extent.  Probably  this  is  due 
in  great  measure  to  the  smallness  of  the  number  of  hibernat- 
ing individuals.  Moreover,  they  wander  from  plant  to  plant 
considerably,  thus  the  damage  is  made  less  noticeable.  The 
adults  are  not,  however,  very  heavy  feeders  actually.  The 
per  cent  of  injury  from  them  is  small  as  compared  to  that 
from  an  equal  number  of  larvae.  When  infesting  new  feed- 
ing grounds  in  summer  the  adults  will  fly  to  bean  fields  where 
the  plants  are  older  rather  than  to  those  where  the  plants 
are  young.  The  extra  cover  for  hiding  among  the  larger 
plants  may  have  something  to  do  with  their  choice. 

Although  the  adults  usually  eat  entirely  through  the  leaf 
they  may  occasionally  merely  scrape  the  surface  as  do  the 
larvae.  When  the  upper  side  of  a leaf  is  turned  down  or  when 
there  is  no  other  place  to  eat,  the  larvae  will  feed  on  the  upper 
surface  of  the  leaf. 

CONTROL  MEASURES. 

PREVENTIVE. 

From  a study  of  the  habits  and  life  history  of  the  bean 
beetle,  there  appear  certain  openings  whereby  damage  may  be 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


9 


prevented  in  great  measure  by  employment  of  cultural  methods 
without  dependence  upon  sprays,  etc. 

Clean  Fields.  Since  the  adults  hibernate  under  piles  of 
old  vines,  rubbish,  etc.,  it  follows'  that  cleaning  up  and  plow- 
ing deeply  the  fields,  in  fall  and  winter,  will  lessen  the  num- 
bers that  will  survive  hibernation. 

Rotation.  Since  the  hibernation  will  take  place  in  the  old 
fields,  or  as  near  to  them  as  possible,  rotation  of  crops,  so 
as  to  remove  the  new  fields  as  far  as  possible  from  the  old,  will 
lessen  the  chances  of  the  adults  finding  the  new  fields  in 
spring.  It  should  be  remembered  that  areas  that  have  been 
in  beans  year  after  year  are  noted  to  be  most  damaged,  re- 
gardless of  planting  time. 

Planting  Time.  Much  can  be  done  in  the  way  of  preven- 
tion by  attention  to  the  time  of  planting.  Climatic  condi- 
tions influencing  time  of  planting  for  various  localities  will 
have  to  be  considered  by  each  locality,  as  that  is  out  of  the 
scope  of  this  bulletin.  Under  irrigation  the  planting  time  is 
not  influenced  by  moisture  needs.  The  hibernated  beetles 
begin  to  feed  very  late.  By  planting  the  beans  as  early  as 
possible  in  the  spring,  the  crop  will  set  and  mature  before  the 
time  of  maximum  injury,  due  to  overlapping  of  the  broods 
in  midsummer  and  later.  See  Scheme  I.  If  it  were  a ques- 
tion of  smaller  yield,  possibly,  from  very  early  planting  or  of 
no  crop  from  beetle  injury,  the  choice  would  go  to  early  plant- 
ing 

Again,  very  late  planting,  if  practiced  uniformly , in  a 
community,  would  so  prolong  the  fasting  period  of  the  beetles 
that  many  would  die  before  finding  plants  for  egg-laying. 
However,  late  planted  beans  are  more  susceptible  to  bean  rust 
and  are  liable  to  very  serious  reduction  in  yield  from  this,  even 
if  they  escape  the  beetles. 

By  uniformly  varying  the  planting  time  from  early,  over 
a series  of  years,  to  late,  in  one  year  next  succeeding  the 
series,  the  balance  of  the  life  cycle  of  the  beetles  may  be  up- 
set and  the  increase  of  the  beetles  for  that  year  lessened.  The 
early  planting  would  then  be  resorted  to  again. 


10 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


From  data  secured  from  the  County  Agents  of  New 
Mexico  and  from  Mr.  A.  G.  Graham,  County  Agent  of  El 
Paso  County,  Texas,  the  following  dates  are  given  concern- 
ing the  bean  crop  in  relation  to  the  bean  beetle. 


TABLE  I.— DATES  CONCERNING  BEAN  CROP  IN  RELATION  TO  THE 
BEAN  BEETLE. 


County 

Earliest  Date 
for  Planting 

1 

Average  Date 
for  Planting 

Average  Date  of 
Maximum  Damage 

1 Stage  of  Crop 
j when  Attacked 

Average  Date 

Maturing 

Per  Cent  Injury 

Bernalillo 

4-1 

5-1  to  15 

7-15 

** 

8-1 

30  to  70 

Chaves  

| No  dat 

a reported 

Colfax  

1 5-1 

5-10  to  6-10| 

In  7 

1 t 

9-10  to  10-1 

Small  to  100 

Dona  Ana  * ... 

1 4-1 

5-10 

7-15  to  8-15 

t 

8-1 

10 

Eddy  f 

1 5-1 

7-1 

9-late 

El  Paso  

| 4-15 

5-15  to  6-1 

8-1 

tt 

8-15 

20 

San  Miguel  

\ 5-20 

i 

6-20 

8-25 

§ 

9-20 

90 

Torrance  

1 5-1 

| 5-15 

8-1 

§§ 

8-lst  wk. 

10 

Union  

1 No  data  reported 

*Data  obtained  from  Experiment  Station.  fAcreage  very  small,  so  data 
scanty. 

**  Approximately  full  grown.  t Pods  forming.  tt  Past  blooming. 
§No  definite  stage.  §§  Last  flowers  to  string  beans. 

From  the  table  above  it  is  seen  that  the  date  of  plant- 
ing may  be  made  from  one.  to  two  weeks  earlier  at  least. 
A gain  of  that  much  time  at  the  crucial  point  of  the  infesta- 
tion means  a great  deal,  as  shown  by  the  rapidity  of  increase 
in  the  number  of  the  insects  at  this  time,  as  well  as  the  rapid 
increase  in  size  of  the  young,  necessitating  voracious  feeding. 

Trap  Crop.  Although  opportunity  has  not  been  present- 
ed for  any  experiment  with  a trap  crop  in  control  of  this 
species,  it  seems  very  reasonable  to  expect  excellent  results 
from  using  a late  trap  crop,  consisting  of  a small  patch  of 
beans,  to  attract  the  adult  beetles  in  late  summer  after  the 
main  crop  of  beans  is  harvested.  When  congregated  on  such 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


11 


a patch  the  beetles  could  be  killed  in  any  convenient  way, 
burning  with  straw,  spraying  with  kerosene,  etc. 

Hand  Picking.  On  a small  patch  of  beans  damage  may 
be  prevented  by  picking  the  adult  beetles  and  eggs  off  the 
vines  as  they  appear.  In  a large  field  this  method  would 
hardly  be  practicable. 

Natural  Enemies.  The  natural  enemies  of  this  species 
seem  to  be  very  few.  They  are  protected  from  attack  in  the 
adult  state  by  the  repellent  fluid  secreted  at  the  leg  joints. 
In  the  summer’s  work  on  the  life  history  of  this  speci-s  no 
parasites  were  found  in  any  stages  of  the  large  number  of 
insects  handled.  On  a few  occasions  the  writer  has  noted 
Hippodarnia  convergens,  the  convergent  lady-bird,  eating  spar- 
ingly of  the  eggs.  Dr.  Gillette,  of  Colorado,  reports  “coccin- 
ellids  eating  eggs.”  Dr.  Morrill,  of  Arizona,  reports  “an  ant 
observed  eating  the  eggs  on  one  occasion.” 

REMEDIAL  MEASURES.  ' 

Various  sprays  were  tested  on  plats  of  beans  of  different 
areas.  “Small  plats”  were  approximately  two  rods  square; 
“large  plats”  were  approximately  two  rods  by  twenty  rods. 
A few  remedies  were  tried  on  areas  of  only  a small  number  of 
plants. 

Right  angle,  mist  producing  nozzles  were  used  and  the 
under  sides  of  the  leaves  carefully  reached. 

Lead  Arsenate  Spray.  On  July  25,  when  adult  beetles 
were  first  noted  in  the  field  powdered  lead  arsenate  was  ap- 
plied on  two  large,  plats.  On  one  it  was<  used  at  the  rate  of 
2 pounds  to  -50  gallons  of  water,  on  the  other  at  the  rate  of 
2]/2  pounds  to  50  gallons  of  water.  Three-fourths  of  the 
leaves  had  both  sides  fully  covered,  the  remaining  one-fourth 
being  partly  covered  in  varying  degrees. 

No  damage  was  noted  from  the  sprays.  Most  of  the 
beetles  left  these  plats  at  once.  A few  eggs  were  found  de- 
posited before  spraying.  If  hatched  on  sprayed  leaves  the 
young  were  killed  on  first  feeding.  If  on  unsprayed  leaves 
they  fed  safely.  Where  such  food  was  sufficient  to  rear  them 


12 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


to  the  third  or  fourth  stage,  the  young  would  refuse  to  eat  of 
sprayed  leaves  and  would  hunt  widely  for  unsprayed  leaves. 
A number  of  adults  and  larvae  of  later  stages  were  confined 
several  days  in  a cage  and  kept  supplied  with  fresh  leaves 
taken  from  sprayed  plants  in  the  field.  A few  individuals 
died  of  starvation.  Only  one  leaf  showed  any  indication  of 
being  eaten  and  that  had  only  one  or  two  bites  taken  from  its 
surface. 

A few  vines  were  sprayed  with  powdered  lead  arsenate 
at  the  rate  of  5 pounds  to  50  gallons  of  water.  There  was 
no  damage  to  the  plants  but  the  protection  afforded  was  no 
more  effective. 

Check  Plat.  A large  plat  adjacent  to  the  plats  above, 
left  unsprayed,  was  badly  injured  by  the  beetles.  Being  at- 
tacked late,  however,  the  beans  matured  a fair  crop  in  spite  of 
the  injury. 

Lead  Arsenate — Dust.  Powdered  lead  arsenate,  1 part, 
to  4 parts  of  powdered  sulphur,  was  applied  to  a small  plat 
with  a hand  dusting  machine.  The  dust  stuck  well  and  was 
easily  applied,  somewhat  more  surface  being  covered  with 
a given  amount  of  arsenate  than  with  the  spray.  Results, 
as  far  as  control  of  the  beetles  was  concerned,  were  about  the 
same  as  with  the  spray. 

Zinc  Arsenite.  A small  plat  was  sprayed  with  zinc  ar- 
senite  at  the  rate  of  2 pounds  to  50  gallons  of  water,  with  2 
pounds  of  stone  lime  added.  Results  were  practically  as  in 
the  first  case  above.  There  was  a trifle  more  trouble  in  keep- 
ing the  zinc  arsenite  in  suspension  and  it-  did  not  seem  to  stick 
quite  as  well  to  the  leaves  as  did  the  lead  arsenate. 

Sodium  Arsenite.  Sodium  arsenite,  1 pound  to  65  gal- 
lons of  water  plus  2 pints  of  sorghum  molasses,  was  applied 
to  a small  plat.  Every  plant  was  either  killed  or  damaged 
so  it  would  not  produce  pods. 

Blackleaf  40.'  Blackleaf  40,  1 pint  to  100  gallons  water 
plus  4 pounds  of  soap,  was  tried  to  test  its  effect  on  the  larvae. 
Most  of  the  larvae  in  the  very  young  stages  were  killed  if 
hit.  Older  larvae  and  adults  were  apparently  uninjured. 


Fig.  4.  Attachment  for  Spraying  Row  Crops. 


THE  B£AN  BEETLE 


13 


Combined  Arsenate  of  Lead  and  Lime  Sulphur.  Tests 
were  made  on  small  areas  as  to  the  effect  of  a combined  spray 
of  commercial  lime  sulphur  and  arsenate  of  lead  paste.  The 
former  was  diluted  at  the  rate  of  1 part  to  64  parts  of  water; 
the  latter  used  at  the  rate  of  3 pounds  to  50  gallons  of  water. 
The  two  solutions  were  mixed  half  and  half.  On  mixing, 
the  resulting  solution  turned  a bile  green  then  almost  black. 
Later  it  became  a light  yellow  again.  The  bean  leaves  were 
spotted  a dark  green  by  the  spray  but  no  other  effects  were 
noted.  The  plants  remained  free  from  infestation  for  two 
w^eks  among  others  badly  infested.  Then  the  spray  seemed 
to  lose  its  power,  for  the  beetles  then  attacked  these  plants. 

Apparatus  for  Spraying.  For  a small  area  of  beans 
almost  any  type  of  sprayer  or  duster  will  suffice.  A fine 
spray  is  necessary  for  economical  use  of  material  and  for  effi- 
cient covering  of  the  leaves.  Angle  nozzles  should  be  used 
so  the  under  sides  of  the  leaves  may  be  reached  and  thor- 
oughly coated.  For  larger  fields,  row  attachments,  after 
the  nature  of  the  one  in  Figure  4 may  be  used.  Such  an 
attachment  may  be  combined  with  hand  or  power  machines. 
The  nozzles  should  be  set  so  as  to  spray  inward  and  upward 
on  each  side  of  a row.  The  angle  type  of  nozzle  makes  this 
easily  done. 


14 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


Studies  of  the  Life  History 


INTRODUCTORY. 

Before  egg-laying  could  be  noted  in  the  field  the  hiber- 
nated adults  used  in  these  studies  were  secured.  They  were 
paired  and  kept  for  a few  days  in  the  laboratory  on  bean 
plants  under  chimney  cages.  When  egg-laying  began  the 
pair  were  transferred  each  to  a field  cage  of  the  type  shown 
in  Fig.  5.  These  cages  were  12x12x16  inches.  One  type 
had  a glass  door,  the  top  and  other  sides  being  of  fine  mesh 
wire.  A second  type  had  cheese  cloth  for  the  top,  all  the  sides 
being  of  16-mesh  wire.  These  cages  provided  practically  nor- 
mal conditions  for  the  adults  and  for  the  eggs  and  larvae  until 
hatched. 

Records  on  egg-laying,  moults,  etc.,  were  made  daily  * 
about  nine  o’clock  in  the  morning.  W|hen  a cluster  of  eggs 
was  deposited,  it  was  recorded  by  number  and  the  same  num- 
ber was  marked  on  the  leaf  bearing  the  eggs.  This  made 
taking  of  data  on  incubation  possible  without  confusion.  A 
few  clusters  at  first  were  placed,  leaf  and  all,  singly,  in  4-inch 
petri  dishes  for  hatching.  A small  bit  of  cotton  was  kept  moi$t 
in  the  dish  to  prevent  excessive  drying. 

For  individual  records,  larvae  were  placed  singly,  when 
hatched,  in  4-inch  petri  dishes.  Bean  leaves  were  provided 
for  food.  They  were  kept  fresh  longer  by  a bit  of  moist  cot- 
ton on  the  petiole.  These  leaves  were  changed  as  soon  as 
unfit  for  food.  Usually  they  lasted  24  hours  and  sometimes 
longer. 

Where  records  only  of  the  total  developmental  period  were 
desired,  large  numbers  of  the  same  date  transformations  were 
kept  in  larger  dishes.  Supplementary  data  were  secured  from 
the  field. 

The  term  “hibernated”  is  used  in  reference  to  adults  that 
have  passed  the  previous  winter  in  hibernation.  The  term 


Fig.  5.  Cages  Used  in  Life  History  Studies,  in  Place 
Over  Bean  Plants  in  the  Field.  (Original). 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


15 


“brood”  is  used  to  refer  to  eggs,  larvae,  pupae,  or  adults  of 
any  generation,  e.  g.,  “first-brood  eggs”  means  the  eggs  laid 
by  the  “hibernated”  adults,  and  producing  the  “first  brood” 
of  larvae,  pupae  and  adults;  “second  brood”  would  be  used  to 
refer  to  members  of  the  second  generation  in  the  same  way. 

THE  ADULT. 

Description. 

The  adult  (Fig.  1)  of  Epilachna  corrupta  Mills,  is  oval 
in  outline;  orange  brown,  shining;  pubescence  very  short, 
rather  abundant.  Elytra  have  each  eight  black  spots ; one 
humeral,  one  sutural  sub-basal,  one  median  sub-basal,  three 
median,  two  sub-apical.  Sterna  and  ventral  surfaces  of  abdo- 
men blackish.  Length  7 to  8 mm.  Female  averages  slightly 
larger  than  male.  Prof.  H.  F.  Wickham  cites  the  original 
description  of  this  species  in  “Species  des  Coleopteres  trimeres 
securipalpes,  Part  II  (No.  90),  p.  815,  1851.  Described  from 
Mexico,  collection  of  Chevrolat.” 

The  color  of  fresh  individuals  is  slightly  lighter  than  nor- 
mal, while  individuals  that  have  hibernated  are  much  darker. 
There  is  considerable  variation  in  the  proportionate  sizes  of 
the  black  spots,  so  much  that  one  can  say,  in  general,  only  that 
the  anterior  spots  average  smaller.  Some  individuals  show  a 
coalescence  of  the  sub-apical  spots  into  one  large  spot. 

The  adult  emerges  through  a longitudinal  crack  that 
appears  in  the  mid-dorsal  line  of  the  pupal  skin,  extending 
from  the  under  side  of  the  anterior  end  back  to  the  abdominal 
region.  The  head  is  first  freed,  then  the  feet,  which  are  used 
to  draw  the  emerging  adult  from  the  pupal  skin.  When  first 
emerged  the  adult  is  a uniform  light  straw  color,  very  soft, 
with  wings  and  wing  covers  in  crumpled  masses  against  the 
thorax.  It  stands  and  crawls  by  turn,  trying  the  while  to 
move  the  wings.  The  latter  gradually  dry  and  expand,  as  they 
dry,  to  their  final  shape.  The  wings  project  backward  at 
first  fronvunder  the  elytra.  As  they  dry  more  completely 
they  lose  the  yellow  color,  becoming  nearly  translucent  with  a 
yellowish  brown  tinge.  Finally  they  fold  under  the  elytra. 


16 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


The  anterior  spots  usually  come  out  first  on  the  elytra, 
then  the  median,  and  lastly  the  posterior,  the  ground  color  by 
then  being  the  normal  orange  brown.  The  order  yf  appear- 
ance of  the  spots  may  vary. 

Usually  the  adults  do  not  feed  until  about  24  hours  after 
emergence.  They  begin  to  copulate  the  second  day,  and  eggs 
may  be  produced  in  from  four  to  six  days  after  copulation. 

From  Table  VI  it  will  be  seen  that  out  of  169  adults  reared 
from  eggs,  45  were  males  and  124  females,  a ratio  of  1 to 
2.75.  This  excess  in  numbers  of  the  females  is  another  factor 
in  the  rapid  multiplication  of  this  species. 

TABLE  II.— SHOWING  LENGTH  OF  LIFE  OF  ADULTS. 


Hibernated  Adults  | First  Brood  Adults 


Of  the  first  brood  adults,  Pairs  I and  II  and  female  of  Pair  III  were 
reared  from  first-brood  larvae  taken  in  the  field;  Pairs  Ila  and  IV  and  male 
of  III  were  reared  from  eggs  secured  from  hibernated  females  used  in  the 
experiment. 

* Probably  August  of  previous  year. 

t Not  recorded. 

Reference  to  Table  II  shows  the  three  hibernated  adults 
dying  between  July  10  and  August  12.  As  adults  they  had 
lived,  then,  between  11  and  12  months,  at  the  least.  The 
first-brood  adults  that  were  kept  in  captivity  died,  without 


Fig.  6.  Cluster  of  Eggs  and  Larvae  of  Bean  Beetle  in 
First  Stage,  Showing  Tendency  to  Feed  in  “Nerds". 
Slightly  Enlarged.  (Original). 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


17 


hibernating,  from  20  to  43  days  after  emerging.  This  does 
not  mean  necessarily  that  none  of  the  first-brood  adults  hiber- 
nate. Fuller  data  would  be  needed  to  determine  this  point,  but 
since  none  of  these  adults  lived  longer,  indications  are  that 
probably  most  of  the  hibernating  individuals  are  from  the 
second  brood. 

CONCERNING  EGGS  AND  EGG-LAYING. 

Manner  of  Oviposition.  To  deposit  the  eggs,  the  female 
seeks  a suitable  spot  on  the  under  side  of  a leaf,  stops  and 
begins  to  work  the  tip  of  the  abdomen  up  and  down  vigorously. 
In  a few  seconds  the  short  ovipositor  is  protruded.  This  is 
then  worked  up  and  down,  the  egg  being  forced  at  the  same 
time  down  the  tube.  Finally  the  tip  of  the  egg  touches  the 
leaf,  sticks  firmly,  the  abdomen  is  raised  high,  freeing  the 
egg  from  the  ovipositor  and  leaving  it  attached  to  the  leaf. 
A few  preliminary  movements  are  then  made  with  the  tip  of 
the  abdomen,  to  ascertain  if  nothing  is  in  the  way,  and  the 
process  is  repeated.  The  deposition  of  one  egg  requires  from 
30  to  70  seconds.  Thus  a large  sized  mass  of  60  eggs  would 
take  30  minutes  to  1 hour  and  10  minutes  for  placing. 

Description  of  the  Egg.  An  egg  is  light,  clouded,  yellow 
in  color  and  of  an  oval  shape,  the  attached  end  being  slightly 
larger  than  the  free  end.  In  size  it  is  1.2  mm.  long  by  .6  mm. 
wide.  The  surface  is  delicately  sculptured.  Infertile  eggs 
may  be  told  by  their  shrivelled  appearance  soon  after  being 
deposited. 

Number  of  Eggs.  As  a rule  the  eggs  are  not  placed  con- 
tiguously in  the  mass,  although  in  some  instances  they  may 
touch  each  other.  There  is  no  definite  arrangement  of  the 
eggs  in  a cluster,  nor  any  definite  shape  to  a cluster.  (Figs. 
2d  and  6). 

Table  III  shows  that  the  number  of  eggs  in  a cluster  is 
not  constant.  For  39  clusters  counted,  the  average  was  46 
eggs  per  cluster.  The  lowest  number  was  7 and  the  highest 
76.  Among  eight  females  observed  in  the  life  history  studies, 
the  maximum  egg  production  for  one  female  was  754  eggs- 


18 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


in  14  clusters  ; the  lowest  was  93  eggs  in  2 clusters.  The  aver- 
age per  female  was  291  eggs. 

The  hibernated  adults  averaged  higher  in  egg  production 
than  those  of  the  first  brood.  The  better  protection  afforded 
the  individuals  in  captivity  would  probably  balance  any  loss 
of  productiveness  through  the  slightly  abnormal  conditions 
under  which  the  females  were  kept,  so  the  above  figures  are 
fairly  representative. 

Length  of  the  Egg-laying  Period.  Among  the  hibernated 
females  whose  egg  records  were  kept,  one  produced  her  quota 
of  754  eggs,  14  clusters,  in  40  days — 1 cluster  each  2.85  days. 
Reference  to  Table  III  shows  the  time  elapsing  between  clus- 
ters varies  from  1 to  10  days.  A second  female  deposited  8 
clusters  in  17  days;  a third  8 clusters  in  28  days. 

Among  the  first-brood  females,  one  laid  6 clusters  in 
16  days;  a second  3 clusters  in  3 days  ;a  third  4 in  13  days;  a 
fourth  4 in  6 days ; a fifth  2 in  2 days.  Probably  the  egg- 
laying  period  for  the  first-brood  females  is  longer  than  these 
figures  show,  under  entirely  natural  conditions.  The  earliest 
of  these  females  could  begin  to  lay  by  the  third  week  in  July. 
The  last  record  for  eggs  at  the  Experiment  Station  Horticul- 
tural Farm  was  on  October  3.  Larvae  from  eggs  laid  so  late 
would  likely  not  mature.  This  would  give  a possible  10  weeks 
period  for  egg  laying  by  the  first-brood  females.  However, 
the  egg-laying  period  for  any  given  female  individual  in  this 
total  time  may  be  short.  Scarcity  of  food  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  above  time  would  restrict  oviposition  and  shorten  the 
average  period,  because  most  of  the  beans  are  harvested  in 
this  region  before  September. 

The  great  length  of  the  egg-laying  period  of  the  females 
of  both  broods  causes  an  overlapping  of  the  broods  and  a con- 
sequently huge  number  of  the  larvae  are  present  in  midsum- 
mer. 

Incubation.  The  average  time  necessary  for  hatching  is 
5.8  days;  the  shortest  time  being  4 days  and  the  longest  time 
9 days.  (Table  III). 

Reference  to  Table  III  shows  that  of  the  eggs  recorded 
approximately  75%  hatched.  In  some  cases  every  egg  in  a 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


19 


cluster  hatched  ; one  record  showed  only  18%  hatching.  Ev- 
erything considered,  normally  the  per  cent  hatching  is  high. 
There  was  no  discernible  difference  in  the  numbers  hatching 
as  between  clusters  on  leaves  in  the  field  cages  and  on  excised 
leaves  in  the  laboratory. 


TABLE  III— EGG  AND  INCUBATION  RECORD. 
Hibernated  Female  No.  I. 


No.  of 
Cluster 


Z o 

45 

37 

60 

48 


6-22 
6-23 
6-25 
6-29 

6- 30 

7-  4 
7-6|7 


Q K 


6-26 
6-28 
7-  3 


£ w 


No.  Days 
Incubation 


P-i 

56 

94+ 
83  + 


Destroyed  by  accident 
2 | 18  + 

6 | 60 

46 


I 

7-11  | 


8 

11 

7-  9 

Destroyed  by  ; 
1 

accident 

1 

Total 

237 

Ave. 

30— 

1 

59 

5.9 

Hibernated  Female  No. 

II. 

1 

1 1 

1 

63  | 

6-24  I 

1 1 1 

Destroyed  by  accident 

2 1 

62  | 

6-27  | 

Destroyed  by  accident 

3 

1 61 

| 6-29 

! 7-  5 

| 45 

| 74— 

6 

4 

| 50 

| 7-  6 

| 7-12 

| 50 

| 100 

5.5 

5 i 

; 56 

| 7-  8 

7-13 

55 

98  + 

5 

6 

60 

1 7-13 

7-22 

20 

33  + 

9 

7 

56 

7-16 

7-23 

56 

100 

7 

8 

1 

58 

1 

7-22 

7-27 

50 

88— 

5 

Total  | 

466  | 

I 

| 

Ave.  ^ 

| 

1 

I 82  + 

6.2 

Hibernated  Female  No. 

IV. 

1 

1 ' 

1 59 

| 6-21 

I 

1 6-29 

1 

| 4* 

2 

I 55 

1 6-22 

6-27 

1 30 

54 

5 

3 1 

60  | 

6-25  I 

Destroyed  by  accident 

4 

1 61 

6-27 

7-  3 

| 50 

| 82 

6 

5 

1 67 

6-29 

7-  5 

| 35 

| 52 

5.5 

6 

1 57 

7-  3 

7-  7 

! 57 

! 100 

4 

7 

58 

7-  6 

7-12 

56 

98  + 

6 

8 

1 60 

7-  9 

7-15 

| 55 

I 91 

6 

9 

| 58 

7-14 

7-18 

1 58 

1 100 

4 

10  | 

51  1 

7-13  | 

Destroyed  by  accident 

11 

1 7 

| 7-14 

| 7-19 

1 5 

1 71  + 

5 

12  | 

50  1 

7-16  | 

7-23  | 

50  | 

100 

13 

| 50 

| 7-21 

1 7-27 

1 45 

1 90 

1 6 

14  | 

1 

62  | 
1 1 

7-31  | 

1 

Destroyed  by  accident 

1 1 1 

1 

Total 

[ 

I 754 

1 

1 

1 

! 

1 

1 

Ave. 

1 • 54— 

! 

! 

1 

1 

1 

1 83 

! - 

1 Ri 

1 

♦Allowed  to  stand  in  direct  sun  in  dish, 
tion  and  hatching  averages. 


Not  counted  in  incuba- 


20 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


TABLE  III.  (Cont’d)  EGG  AND  INCUBATION  RECORD. 
First  Brood  Female  No.  I. 


No.  of 
Cluster 

* No.  in 
Cluster 

Date 

Laid 

1 

rO 

A 

V V 

ft  ft 

7-23 

7- 25 

8-  2 

8-  2 

8-  2 

8-  9 

No. 

j Hatched 

! 

I Per  Cent 

, Hatched 

1 

No.  Days 
Incubation 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

61 

62 

20 

58 

10 

58 

| 42 

58 

15 

56 

6 

50 

| 70— 

93  + 

75 

96  + 

60 

88— 

1 5 

1 5 

6 

5 

5 

6 

Total 

Ave. 

269 

45— 

80 

5.3 

First 

Brood  Female  No. 

II. 

1 

76 

7-19 

7-25 

| 60 

79— 

6 

2 

50 

7-21 

7-28 

| 40 

80 

7 

3 

45 

7-22 

7-27 

| 40 

89— 

5 

Total  i 

171 

1 

1 

1 

Ave.  | 

57  | 

1 

83—  1 

1 6 

First  Brood  Female  No. 

1 la. 

1 | 

32 

1 

2 

31 

1 

Not  kept  for  incubation  record  ' 

3 

39 

i 

4 

42 

1 

Total 

| 144 

i 

Ave. 

| 36 

1 

First  Brood  Female  No. 

III. 

1 

| 40 

2 

1 45 

3 

56 

Not  kept 

for  incubation  record 

4 1 

59 

Total 

| 200 

] 

Ave. 

| 50 

1 

First  Brood  Female  No. 

IV. 

1 

i 53 

Not  kept  for  incubation  record 

2 

40 

Total 

| 93 

1 

Ave. 

! 46  + 

1 

Computation  from  Total  Record. 

No  Eggs 

No  Eggs  1 Fer  Cent  1 

Period  Days 

in  Cluster 

per  Female  | Hatching 

Incubation 

Maximum  | 

76 

! 754  | 

100  | 

9 

Minimum  j 

7 

I 93  I 

18  | 

4 

Average  | 

46 

! 291 

I 

75  | 

5.8 

THE  LARVA. 


Hatching..  When  the  larva  is  ready  to  emerge  it  first 
chips  out  a hole  in  the  free  end  of  the  egg.  The  head  is  forced 
through  this  opening.  By  more  or  less  regular  contraction  and 
expansion  of  the  whole  body  and  by  wrigglings  of  the  anterior 
part  of  the  body,  the  front  legs  are  next  withdrawn  from  the 
egg,  as  the  body  is  forced  upward.  Once  out,  the  front  legs 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


21 


are  used  for  grasping  the  side  of  the  egg  or  any  nearby  sur- 
face, thus  aiding  in  drawing  the  body  out.  As  the  other  legs 
come  out  in  turn  they  are  used  in  like  manner.  The  time 
consumed  in  this  entire  process  varies  from  an  hour  and  a 
half  to  two  hours. 

First  Stage.  When  the  yellowish  larva  first  frees  itself 
from  the  egg  the  spines  are  closely  appressed.  As  the  chitin 
dries,  the  spines  become  erect  and  are  seen  to  be  branched  at 
and  near  the  tip.  Later  the  tips  of  the  branches  become  darker. 
The  larva  is  about  1.3  mm.  long  by  .6  mm.  wide.  The  body 
tapers  sharply  in  the  abdominal  region  and  is  recurved  down- 
ward. There  is  a row  of  four  spines  across  the  front  of  the 
rather  pronounced  pro-thorax.  On  the  rest  of  the  body  there 
are  six  longitudinal  dorso-lateral  rows,  the  spines  of  the  outside 
rows  being  very  small  and  very  few. 

The  larvae  remain  for  some  hours  congregated  on  the 
egg  cluster  after  hatching  before  they  go  to  feed.  Then  they 
move  down  to  the  surface  of  the  leaf  and  feed  together 
(Fig.  6)  outward  from  the  egg  mass  without  leaving  this 
leaf,  if  it  is  in  condition  to  be  eaten.  Within  10  minutes 
after  the  larvae  begin  to  feed  the  green  color  may  be  noticed 
in  the  digestive  canal.  By  20  minutes  excreta  were  noted. 
When  about  ready  for  the  first  moult  the  larvae  scatter  and 
wander  apart  somewhat.  The  first  stage  of  the  first-brood 
larvae  averaged  4.3  days  in  duration;  of  the  second  brood 
the  period  was  3 days  for  all  the  larvae  used  (Tables  IV,  V). 
The  maximum  time  was  7 days  and  the  minimum  3 days  for 
first  brood. 


22 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


TABLE  IV— TRANSFORMATION  RECORD  OF  FIRST  BROOD  LARVAE. 


Sh 

o 

£2 

B 

'O 

d M 

s 

<D 

£} 

o 

OJ 

bo 

•2 

B >» 

Larval  Nu 

Date  Eggs 
Deposited 

O 

d 

X 

<x> 

d 

Q 

1st  Moult 

2nd  Moult 

3rd  Moult 

\ 4th  (Pupat 

1 Moult 

5th  (Emeri 

Moult 

Sex 

Larval  Pei 

days 

Developme 

Period;  da 

1 

6-22 

6-26 

6-29 

1 

1 

i 

2 1 

**  | 

**  | 

7-  2 | 

7-  4 | 

7-  8 | 

7-13  | 

7-18  | 

Male 

17 

26 

3 

** 

6-28 

7-  3 

* 1 

4 

*♦ 

** 

6-30 

♦ 

| 7-  7 | 

7-13  j 

5 

** 

** 

7-  3 

7-  6 

7-10 

| 7-15 

1 7-20 

1 Female 

19 

28 

6 

** 

** 

7-  2 

7-  4 

7-8 

1 7-13 

| 7-18 

| Female 

17 

26 

7 

| ** 

| ** 

| 7-  2 

| 7-  4 

7-  8 

1 7-13 

1 7-18 

| Female 

17 

26 

8 

** 

** 

7-2y 

Ki 

lied  accidentally 

9 

** 

6-30 

7-  4 

7-  7 

7-13 

7-17 

Male 

17 

25 

10 

** 

** 

6-29 

7-  3 

7-  6 

7-13 

7-17 

Female 

17 

25 

11 

** 

** 

6-29 

7-  2 

7-  6 

7-12 

7-17 

Female 

16 

25 

12 

** 

** 

6-29 

7-  4 

7-  7 

7-13 

7-18 

Female 

17 

26 

13 

** 

** 

7-  2 

7-  5 

7-10 

7-17 

7-20 

Male 

21 

28 

14 

** 

** 

7-  2 

7-  5 

7-  9 

7-14 

7-19 

Male 

18 

27 

15 

** 

** 

* 

16 

** 

** 

* 

17 

** 

** 

6-30 

1 7-  3 

7-  6 

1 7-12 

7-17 

Male 

16 

25 

18 

** 

** 

6-29 

| 7-  3 

7-  6 

| 7-12 

7-16 

Female 

16 

24 

19 

** 

** 

6-29  | 

7-  4 

1 7-  7 | 

7-13 

7-17 

Male 

17 

25 

20 

** 

** 

* 

! 

I • 

| 

21 

** 

** 

6-30 

1 7-^4 

1 7-  7 | 

7-13 

7-17  | 

Male 

17 

25 

22 

** 

** 

6-30 

I 

23 

** 

** 

* 

1 

24 

** 

** 

6-30 

7-  4 

| 7-  7 

1 7-13 

7-18 

Female 

17 

26 

25 

6-27 

7-  3 

7-  7 

j 7-10 

| 7-13 

| 7-19 

7-24 

Female 

16 

27 

26 

tt 

1 tt 

| 7-  7 

| 7-  9 

| 7-12 

| 7-19 

| * j 

16 

27 

27 

tt 

1 tt 

'7-  7 

7-  9 

1 7-12 

1 7-18 

7-23 

Female 

15 

26 

28 

ti 

tt 

7-  7 

7-  9 

7-12 

| 7-18 

7-23 

Female 

15 

26 

29 

tt 

1 tt 

7-  8 

7-11 

7-14 

1 * 

30 

tt 

i 

1 tt 

1 1 

7-  6 

7-  9 

1 

7-12 

| 7-18 

1 

7-23 

Female 

15 

26 

<D 

be 

cS 

m 

<x> 

be 

d 

m 

0) 

be 

d 

m 

be 

d 

m 

<x> 

be 

d 

m 

d 

w 

B 

'O 

A 

a 

3 

tH 

<NI 

co 

t Average  No.  of  days. 

4.3 

3.2 

3.4  1 

1 5.8 

4.7 

1 

| 16.8 

25.9 

Maximum 

No.  of  days 

7 

5 

5 

1 7 

5 

1 21 

28 

Minimum 

/ 

No.  of  days 

3 

2 

3 

5 

3 

! 15 

24 

♦Died. 

♦♦The  first  twenty-four  larvae  are  all  from  the  same  cluster. 
ttThe  last  six  larvae  are  from  a second  cluster. 

fThe  records  of  the  individuals  that  completed  their  development  were 
the  only  ones  used  in  obtaining-  averages. 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


23 


TABLE  V.— TRANSFORMATION  RECORD  OF  SECOND  BROOD  LARVAE. 


bo^ 

bfl© 


a* . 

© o 


1 

7-18 

7-23 

7-27 

7-29 

8-  1 

* 

15 

25 

2 

** 

** 

7-26 

7-28 

7-31 

8-  7 

8-12 

Female 

3 

** 

** 

7-26 

7-28 

7-31 

8-  7 

8-12 

Female 

15 

25 

4 

** 

** 

7-26 

7-29 

8-  2 

8-  7 

8-12 

Female 

15 

25 

5 

** 

** 

7-26 

7-29 

7-31 

8-  7 

8-12 

Female 

15 

25 

6 

-** 

** 

7-26 

7-28 

7-31 

8-  7 

8-12 

Male 

15 

25 

7 

** 

** 

7-27 

7-30 

8-  2 

8-  4 

* 

8 

♦ * 

** 

7-26  ! 

| 7-28 

7-31 

8-  8 

8-12 

Female 

16 

25 

9 

** 

** 

7-26 

7-28 

7-31 

8-  8 

8-13 

Female 

16 

26 

10 

** 

** 

7-27  | 

* 1 

1 

11 

** 

** 

7-26 

I 7-29 

8-  1 

| 8-  8 

8-13 

| Female 

16 

26 

12 

** 

** 

7-26 

7-29 

7-31 

| 8-  7 

8-12 

| Male 

15 

25 

13 

** 

** 

7-26  1 

7-29 

8-  2 

I 8-  9 

* 

14 

** 

** 

7-26  | 

7-29 

8-  1 

1 8-  9 

* 

15 

** 

** 

7-26 

1 7-29 

7-31 

1 8-  9 

8-13 

Female 

17 

26 

16 

** 

** 

7-26 

| 7-29 

8-  2 

8-  8 

8-13 

Female 

16 

26 

17 

** 

** 

7-26  1 

7-29 

8-  1 

| 8-  8 

* 

18 

** 

** 

7-26  1 

7-29 

8-  1 

8-  9 

* 

19 

** 

** 

7-26 

| 7-29 

8-  1 

| 8-  8 

8-12 

Female 

16 

25 

20  | 

**  | 

**  | 

7-26  | 

7-29  | 

7-31  | 

8-  7 | 

8-12  | 

Male 

15 

25 

21 

I ** 

** 

7-26 

| 7-29 

| 8-  1 

8-  7 

| 8-12 

Female 

15 

25 

22  1 

** 

** 

7-26  1 

7-29  1 

8-  2 

* 

23 

** 

** 

7-26 

7-29 

8-  2 

* 

24 

** 

** 

7-26  1 

7-29  | 

8-  2 

* 

25 

| ** 

| ** 

7-26 

| 7-29 

| 8-  2 

8-11 

| 8-15 

| Female 

19 

28 

26 

** 

** 

7-27 

* 

27 

** 

** 

8-  1 

* 

28 

** 

** 

7-26 

7-29 

8-  1 

8-  8 

* 

29 

** 

** 

7-26 

7-29 

8-  2 

8-  9 

* 

30 

** 

** 

7-26 

7-29 

8-  2 

* 

© 

bo 

© 

bo 

S 

© 

bo 

aS 

© 

bo 

d 

© 

bo 

I 

M 

OQ 

W 

m 

M 

T3 

T3 

Xi 

ft 

3 

* 

£ 

eo 

Tt< 

111 

tAverage  No.  of  days 
Maximum  No.  of  days 
Minimum  No.  of  days 


2.9  | 7.1 


4.7  | 
5 I 
4 I 


| 15.7  | 25.4 

I 19  | 28 

I 15  |25 

I 1 


♦Died. 

♦♦All  30  iarvae  from  the  same  cluster  of  eggs. 

tThe  records  of  the  individuals  that  completed  their  development  were 
the  only  ones  used  in  obtaining  the  averages. 


Second  Stage.  After  the  first  moult  the  larva  is  2 mm. 
long  and  the  tip  of  the  abdomen  is  slightly  more  curved  than 
in  the  first  stage.  The  spines  are  longer  and  more  branched. 
The  dark  tips  are  not  so  pronounced.  The  rows  of  spines  are 
the  same  in  number  but  more  distinct. 


24 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


Moulting  is  effected  as  follows:  The  tip  of  the  abdomen 
is  stuck  to  the  leaf ; a longitudinal,  median  split  comes  in  the 
thoracic  region  and  the  head  is  worked  out;  next  the  feet  are 
freed.  Clinging  by  the  feet  the  larva  then  pulls  itself  out 
of  the  old  skin. 

The  larvae  are  now  able  to  travel  well  and  hunt  for 
suitable  food.  Tables  IV  and  V show  the  duration  of  the 
second  stage  of  the  first-brood  larvae  to  be  3.2  days;  of  the 
second-brood  larvae  2.6  days.  The  maximum  was  5 days 
and  the  minimum  2 days  for  first  brood;  and  3 and  2 days, 
respectively,  for  the  second  brood. 

Third  Stage.  After  the  second  moult  the  larva  is  4 mm. 
long.  The  spines  are  longer,  more  branched  from  the  sides, 
and  dark  tipped.  The  rows  are  now  easily  seen.  In  this  stage 
the  larva  seems  to  be  rather  humpbacked,  the  highest  and  wid- 
est portion  of  the  body  being  about  the  middle  portion.  The 
abdomen  tapers  sharply,  the  anterior  end  slightly,  only. 

From  Tables  IV  and  V the  average  duration  of  this  stage 
is  seen  to  be  3.4  days  for  the  first-brood  larvae  and  2.9  days 
for  the  second-brood  larvae.  For  first-brood  maximum  5 
days,  minimum  3 ; for  second  brood,  maximum  4 days  and 
minimum  2. 

Fourth  Stage.  At  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  stage  the 
larva  is  5.4  mm.  long  and  it  increases  to  nearly  1 cm.  in  length 
before  the  fourth  moult.  The  chief  difference  between  the 
larva  in  this  stage  and  in  the  last  is  in  the  size. 

Tables  IV  and  V show  this  stage  to  last  5.8  days  in  the 
first  brood;  and  7.1  days  in  the  second-brood  larvae.  For  the 
first,  maximum  was  7 and  minimum  5 days ; for  second  brood, 
9 and  6 days,  respectively. 

Since  this  stage  is  longest  in  time  and  the  larvae  are 
largest  in  size,  it  is  during  this  period  that  the  capabilities  for 
damage  are  the  greatest.  Reports  of  damage  usually  come  in 
when  a maximum  number  of  the  larvae  have  reached  this 
stage. 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


25 


Near  the  end  of  this  stage  the  larva  stops  feeding  for 
about  24  hours,  and  wanders  about  considerably.  Finally, 
having  found  a suitable  place  on  stem,  leaf,  or  pod,  the  tip  of 
the  abdomen  is  firmly  glued  to  the  surface,  the  skin  cracks 
in  the  thoracic  region  in  a mid-dorsal  line,  and  is  pushed  back 
in  a wrinkled,  white  mass  to  the  fixed  tip.  This  is  the  pupa- 
tion moult.  The  black  tips  of4  the  spines  on  the  cast  skin  are 
very  evident. 

Duration  of  the  Entire  Larval  Period.  Tables  IV  and  V 
show  the  entire  larval  peroid  to  average  16.8  days  for  the  first 
brooc},  with  a maximum  of  21  days  and  a minimum  of  15 
days;  for  the  second  brood  the  average  was  15.7  days,  with 
a maximum  of  19  and  a minimum  of  15  days.  The  longer’ 
fourth  stage  in  the  second  brood  almost  compensates  for  the 
longer  time  for  the  earlier  stages  in  the  first  brood. 

The  Pupa.  The  pupa  (Fig.  2b)  is  yellow  in  color,  about 
7.5  mm.  long  by  4.5  mm.  wide  in  the  meso-thoracic  region 
Posteriorly  it  tapers  rapidly  to  the  tip;  the  anterior  end  is 
bluntly  rounded.  There  are  no  spines  on  the  pupa,  indications 
of  rows  of  tubercles  representing  the  rows  of  spines.  The 
abdominal  segments  are  evident  on  the  dorsal  surface.  Very 
fine,  rather  long,  somewhat  sparsely  set  hairs  cover  the  whole 
surface.  The  pupal  period  averaged  4.7  days  in  either  brood, 
with  5 days  as  a maximum  in  each.  The  minimum  in  the  first 
brood  was  3 days  and  in  the  second  4 days.  (Tables  IV,  V). 

Total  Developmental  Period.  From  Table  IV  and  Table 
V the  average  total  time  from  egg  to  adult  is  25.9  days  for  the 
first  brood  and  25.4  days  for  the  second  brood.  In  Table  VI 
are  given  the  records  of  169  larvae  all  hatched  within  the 
first  two  weeks  in  July  and  all  transformed  to  adults  before 
the  end  of  the  first  week  in  August.  They  represent  pretty 
well  the  middle  of  the  season.  Among  these  individuals  the 
average  time  from  egg  to  adult  was  24.7  days,  being  slightly 
below  the  averages  given  in  Tables  IV  and  V.  The  shortest 
time  for  the  transformations  was  22  days  and  the  longest  time 
28  days. 


26 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


TABLE  VI.— TOTAL  DEVELOPMENTAL  PERIOD  AND  RATIO  OF  MALES 
TO  FEMALES. 


No  of  Larviie 
Observed 

Date  Eggs  Laid 

Date  Adults 
Emerged 

Sex 

Period  of  Develop- 

ment; days 

Males 

Females 

6 

6-27 

7-23 

3 

3 

26 

2 

6-27 

7-24 

1 

1 

27 

3 

6-27 

7-25 

0 

3 

28 

3 

6-29 

7-23 

1 

2 

24 

1 

6-29 

7-24 

0 

1 

25 

1 

6-29 

<*  7-25 

0 

1 

26 

17 

7-  3 

7-25 

6 

11 

22 

19 

7-  3 

7-26 

' ' 2 

1.7 

23 

5 

7-  3 

7-27 

0 

5 

24 

8 

7-  6 

7-30 

3 

5 

24 

17 

7-  6 

7-31 

5 

12 

25 

33 

7-  -6 

8-  1 

5 

28 

26 

16 

7-  6 

8-  2 

8 ' 

8 

27 

6 

7-  8 

7-31 

0 

6 

23 

22 

7-  8 

8-  1 

8 

14 

24 

6 

7-  8 

8-  2 

2 

4 

25 

4 

7-  8 

8-  3 

1 

3 

26 

169  ' ' “ T 45  124  Ave.  24.7 

Min.  22 

Ratio  of  males  to  females,  1 : 2.75  Max.  28 


SUMMARY  OF  THE  LIFE  HISTORY. 

The  studies  of  the  life  history  of  the  bean  beetle  showed 
that  there  were  two  full  generations  per  year.  Further,  15 
adults  of  the  second  generation,  hatched  about  the  middle  of 
August,  were  placed  in  a screen  cage  over  growing  bean  plants 
in  the  field.  Careful  observation  failed  to  show  any  tendency 
toward  copulation  on  the  part  of  these  individuals,  nor  were 
any  eggs  found  at  any  time  after  in  the  cage.  By  the  middle 
of  Octboer  the  vines  were  dead  and  two  males  and  six  females 
were  still  alive.  By  November  1 they  had  crawled  down  under 
the  leaves  in  the  cage  to  hibernate.  Evidently  there  is  no 
third  generation.  Dr.  C.  P.  Gillette,  in  Colorado  Agricultural 
Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  19,  1892,  reports  only  one 
generation  in  a year  in  that  region. 

The  following  approximate  outline  of  the  life  history 
may  be  given  for  the  Mesilla  Valley,  New  Mexico,  region : 

1.  Hibernated  adults  lay  eggs  from  June  15  to  August  1. 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


27 


2.  First-brood  larvae  found  from  June  19  to  Apgu^t  23. 

3.  First-brood  pupae  found  from  July  5 to  August  28. 

4.  First-brood  adults  found  from  July  10  throughout  the 
season.  Some  may  hibernate. 

5.  Second-brood  eggs  found  from  July  16  to  end  of  season. 

6.  Second-brood  larvae  found  from  July  20  to  end  of 
season. 

7.  Second-brood  pupae  found  from  August  5 to  end  of 
season. 

8.  Second-brood  adults  found  from  August  10 — Hiber- 
nate.. May  live  a year  or  even  slightly  more. 

This  outline  may  be  shown  in  schematic  form  as  below. 
It  will  be  seen  in  the  scheme  that  there  is  a period  between 
July  20  and  August  23  when  the  two  broods  of  larvae  over- 
lap. Reference  to  Table  I shows  again  that  this  is  the  time 
for  maximum  injury  from  this  species. 


SCHEME  I.— SHOWING  OUTLINE  OF  LIFE  HISTORY. 


January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

.1  une 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December  j 

1 I 

| 15.. 

1 

1 

...1 

1 I I 

1 

1 

1 1 

i • 

1 

1 

! ! ,» 

i 1 

. .23 

1 1 

1 

1 

si 

1 1 

! 

I I 

I 5. . 

. .28 

1 

1 | | 

1 io 

. . |.7  (?)  , | 

4 

1 

1 | i 

1 

[..  i i ' ■ i i 

| 

| 

i 

1 

| 

| 

i 

1 • 1 1 

| 

5 

1 

1 

1 1 1 

I 16.. 

i 

1 1.7  (?)| 

1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

i 20.  . 

i 

1 1 1 

1 1:7  (?)  1 

1 - 

1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 

1 

i 

1,  5.. 

1 1 1 

1 1.7  (?)  1 

1 

1 

| 

1 ! 1 

| 

| 8.  . 

8 

r i i 

| 

The  figures  in  the  left-hand  column  refet  to  the  stages  as  numbered  in 

outline  above. 


28 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


HISTORY  AND  DISTRIBUTION  OF 
Epilachna  corrupia  Muls. 

The  records  of  the  bean  beetle  as  a pest  in  New  Mexico 
date  far  back.  In  Insect  Life.  1889,  Mr.  J.  F.  Wielandy  is 
quoted  in  a letter  written  from  Springer,  N.  M.,  July  30, 
as  follow  : “Mr.  William  Kronig  says  he  has  known  it  (the 
bean  beetle)  for  40  years  previous  and  it  was  just  as  bad  then 
as  now.”  That  would  take  the  record  back  to  1849.  Mr. 
Kronig  lived  at  Watrous,  N.  M.,  at  the  time.  In  New  Mexico 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  15,  p.13,  1895, 
Prof.  T.  D.  A.  Cockerell  stated  he  took  this  species  on  beans 
at  Santa  Fe,  N.  M.,  July  5.  In  Bui.  21  from  this  Station  a note 
from  the  San  Juan  County  Sub-Station  reported  damage  from 
this  species  in  1897. 

It  is  present  practically  all  over  the  State,  ranging  in  ver- 
tical distribution  from  3000  ft.  to  7000  ft.  As  previously  noted, 
this  species  was  first  described  from  Mexico  in  1851.  Profes- 
sor Wickham  concludes  Mexico  “is  the  home  of  the  species, 
no  doubt.” 

Answers  to  a questionnaire  sent  to  states  in  the  southern 
half  of  the  United  States  and  some  farther  north,  give  the  fol- 
lowing infromation  as  to  the  distribution  of  this  species  in 
the  United  States. 

It  is  reported  definitely  in  only  five  states : Arizona, 
Colorado,  New  Mexico,  Texas,  and  Utah.  In  “Injurious 
and  Beneficial  Insects  of  California,”  Supplement  to  the 
Monthly  Bulletin  of  the  California  Horticultural  Commission, 
1915/on  page  219,  Epilachna  corrapta  “is  said  to  have  been 
found  in  California.”  Mr.  E.  C.  Van  Dyke,  Taxonomist  of 
the  California  Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  reported  “it 
might  possibly  be  established  in  the  Imperial  Valley,”  but 
there  were  no  records.  Dr.  Morrill  gives  no  records  from  that 
region  of  Arizona  adjacent  to  this  part  of  California. 

Prof.  J.  W.  Scott,  University  of  Wyoming,  reported  an 
interesting  item  as  follows:  “No  record  in  Wyoming.  . . .It 
is  possible,  of  course,  for  this  insect  to  be  present  in  Wyoming 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


29 


without  our  having  record  of  it In  our  collection  are  speci- 

mens marked  ‘Epilachna  corrupta,  Fort  Collins,  18902  Fort 
Collir-s,  Colorado,  is  67  miles  from  here  (Laramie)  and  about 
2000  ft.  lower .Elevation  of  Laramie  is  7100  ft.” 

In  Colorado,  Dr.  C.  P.  Gillette,  State  Entomologist,  re- 
ported it  as  “abundant  in  the  foothill  regions.”  Prof.  Wick- 
ham gives  the  following  locality  records  from  his  collection 
from  Colorado:  Colorado  Springs,  Fort  Collins,  Denver, 
Trinidad,  Durango.  He  further  furnished  this  note  of  rec- 
ords, in  this  State : “Boulder,  Golden,  Buena  Vista — Nat. 
Hist.  Bui  State  University  of  Iowa,  V.,  p.  256,  1902.” 

Dr.  A.  W.  Morrill,  State  Entomologist  of  Arizona,  in 
Jour.  Econ.  Entomology,  Vol.  6,  No.  2,  p.  193,  recorded  it 
as  “observed  or  authoritatively  reported  from  Thatcher,  Clif- 
ton, McNeil,  Prescott  and  Taylor,  representing  elevations  from 
2500  to  5500  ft.  It  is  unknown  in  the  Salt  River  Valley.” 
The  writer  observed  it  in  1916  at  Clifton  and  Safford,  Ari- 
zona. 


Mr.  F.  B.  Paddock,  State  Entomologist  of  Texas,  report- 
ed no  records  from  the  region  about  College  Station.  How- 
ever, the  writer  has  seen  this  species  occurmg  abundantly  in 
the  El  Paso  Valley.  Prof.  Wickham  cites  specimens  in  his 
collection  from  Alpine,  Texas. 

Dr.  E.  G.  Titus,  of  Utah,  reported  no  record  as  yet  but 
thought  it  might  possibly  occur  in  the  southern  part  of  the 
State.  Mr.  M.  H.  Swenk,  of  the  Nebraska  Station,  reported 
in  the  collection  there,  specimens  labeled  “Ogden,  Utah,” 
without  date  or  collector  label. 

Dr.  Leonard  Haseman,  Entomologist  of  the  Missouri 
Station,  reports : “I  find  in  our  permanent  collection  three 
specimens  without  locality  labels  but  apparently  pinned  here  in 
our  laboratory.” 

The  following  States  reported  negatively  as  to  the  occur- 
rence of  this  species:  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Florida,  Iowa, 
Kansas,  Louisiana,  Oklahoma,  Nebraska,  Nevada,  and  South 
Carolina. 


30 


THE  BEAN  BEETLE 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. 

The  author  takes  this  means  of  expressing  his  gratitude 
to  all  who  helped  make  this  bulletin  possible.  Especial 
acknowledgment  of  favors. is  due  the  Horticultural  Depart- 
ment for  assistance  with  the  spraying  and  for  the  loan  of  the 
experimental  bean  plats  for  control  work ; to  the  County  Agri- 
cultural Agents  of  New  Mexico,  who  furnished  certain  data 
from  their  respective  localities  in  regard  to  the  bean  beetle; 
to  the  County  Agricultural  Agent  of  El  Paso  County,  Texas, 
Mr.  A.  G.  Graham,  for  furnishing  similar  data  from  his  coun- 
ty; to  all  the  Entomologists,  who,  on  request,  so  kindly  fur- 
nished data  from  their  States  on  the  status  of  the  bean  beetle; 
to  the  Deming  Company,  Salem,  Ohio,  for  the  loan  of  the 
photograph  from  which  Fig.  IV  was  made;  to  Prof.  H.  F. 
Wickham,  State  University  of  Iowa,  for  data  on  the  distribu- 
tion and  reference  to  the  original  description  of  Epilachna 
corrupta  Muls. 


V 


PRESERVATION  REVIEW 


